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

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

On Tuesday 15 March 2005 22:42, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:26:58PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > As most people in this threas have expressed lot of bad feelings about
> > this. I must tell that I think this proposal is a good step toward
> > quicker releases etc.
> >
> > With the clarifications (see the new thread) I must say that this
> > is a very sane proposal.
> >
> > Some people tend to think the worst of everything. If you look at this
> > proposal as a proposal and with the intention to make things working
> > in a good way, I think this proposal is one of the best ones in a
> > very long time.
> I agree.  It's become quite evident that Debian is barely able to make
> releases at all with the status quo.  
what status quo? We went from:
- 1 RM to a release team
- lots of kernel source package to 1 kernel source package (per 
- kernel being maintained by lone maintainer to kernel being maintained by 
- unmaintanable installer that nobody wanted to work on, to great new 
installer with lots of people working on it 
- we updated some of the infrastructre were that was necessary

All of these are considerable improvements, that should I think help us make 
new releases easier, things are improving
> And, given a choice between having 
> no stable releases at all and having stable releases of a significantly
> reduced number of arches, I'd gladly choose the latter.
Do we have scalability problems -> yes 

Is it clear that those problems are fundamentally unsolvable (and hence we'd 
need to limit the number of architectures) -> not at all

> What baffles me is why so many seem to miss this point and instead have
> decided to turn it into a religious flame war.
we haven't missed the point:
- namely we need to release in a somewhat predictable time frame (only 
releasing once every 2, (or even 3) years is not the main problem, the 
problem is that we spend over a year saying we'll release RSN and )

-> lots of people just disagree that with how the Vancouver proposal goes 
about solving the problem
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
    format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)

Attachment: pgpkMXMFivAl2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: