[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Scripsit David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:45:48PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:

>> Meaning that they are kicked out and told to start their own project
>> where they can take matters in their own hands. Just what they've
>> always wanted to do, I am sure.

> It's not ideal, but the fact remains that the people carrying the
> load for getting the release out aren't capable of dealing with it
> any more.

Which is no reason for forbidding other people from doing the work.

> The current situation is *broken*. This is an attempt to fix it.

Perhaps it attempts to do that; but what it really does is to forbid

>> > The differences? Port packages don't go in to Debian mainline
>> > testing. However, this does not preclude them from setting up a
>> > separate testing if they like.

>> Which part of "unstable-only" does one of us fail to understand?

> This is not set in stone.

That combination of letters explicitly appears in the proposal we are

> Unstable-only is simply what the current team is willing to set up
> and support themselves.

It is what the team proposes as the rule for all of Debian.

> Nowhere in the email does it preclude the ports from setting up
> something to manage themselves.

Which part of "unstable-only" does one of us fail to understand?

>> And you still claim that having this solution (non-solution if you ask
>> me) forced on an architecture from above constitutes "flexibility to
>> take matters in their own hands"???

> Yes. All the tools are there to do exactly what they want to do, if they so
> choose.

But only if they leave Debian and start to do what they want to in
another organization. Because the plan says that *within* Debian
nothing but unstable will be allowed.

>> However, they have now made it their job to tell the ports that they
>> *must not* move alongside the rest of Debian, whether or not the
>> portes want to or not.

> It's the decision of those doing the work.

No. This plan is the decision of the RMs and ftpmasters telling
certain ports *not* to do the work, at least not within Debian.

> Those doing the work of managing the release, managing d-i, and
> managing our backend all say that this isn't working. Bitch all you
> want, but the problems have to be solved and the current load placed
> on the porters isn't solving it.

I fail to see ANY argument why forbidding the ports from having
testing and stable suites solve any of the problems you are alluding

>> > This does not preclude porters from making a stable release.

>> Which part of "unstable-only" does one of us fail to understand?

> Which part of "proposal" does one of us fail to understand?

I fail to see how "proposal" means "must not be disagreed with".
Please explain.

>> If you think a snapshot makes a distribution stable, then why do we
>> have testing and freezes for the main architectures at all?

> A snapshot doesn't make a distribution stable. A snapshot (or
> "freeze" if you'd rather) followed by a stabilization period makes a
> distribution stable.

And the Vancouver plan says that lesser distributions are not allowed
to have freezes and stabilization periods. They are *unstable-only*.

>> > I think that when a port makes a stable release

>> ... which it is not allowed to according to the Vancouver plan.

> Got a quote for this?


> Everything I've read and heard from those involved says differently.

Everything I've read and heard from those involved says that the
lesser architectures are only allowed to have unstable.

>> Why do the RM's think it is their job to *prevent* the lesser ports
>> from releasing?

> They're not preventing them from doing any such thing.

Yes they are. "Unstable-only".

Henning Makholm       "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
                 useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."

Reply to: