[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'
* 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?

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: