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

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



On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:14:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This proposal is, first and foremost, about setting concrete criteria that
> we can hold the ports to for etch, to get away from wishy-washy, "one more
> week for kernel updates on $arch", "$arch2 isn't doing so well, maybe we
> should drop it from testing" problems that the release team is currently
> suffering from.  The idea of setting criteria should not be controversial,
> though I can understand that specific criteria we've suggested may be.

True. The specific criteria as have been suggested are most certainly
controversial; but setting criteria for ports to keep up with should not
necessarily be.

It may be a bad idea to suddenly set a whole bunch of criteria at once;
big and controversial changes are not how Free Software in the 'bazaar'
model generally works.

For that reason, why not reduce the whole proposal to...

* The separate mirror stuff is implemented (I don't think anyone has any
  problems with that, except for its name which should be 'nybbles'
  IMO)
* All ports need to
  * build packages within (to be defined) days, on average, of them
    getting in the 'Needs-Build' state (this may require applying the
    patch by Matthias Ulrichs to wanna-build)
  * have some basic UNIX functionality, such as resolving DNS names,
    firewall capacity, and some (to be defined) subset of POSIX.

...and address any problems after that as they come up?

-- 
         EARTH
     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
         WATER
 -- with thanks to fortune

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: