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

Re: bits from the release team

* Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [060103 23:02]:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:31:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > the other hand side, the difference is only one week - and if nothing is
> > broken by that, we can freeze the kernel at N-110 also.
> i think comparing the kernel with the toolchain is overkill, if nothing else a
> last minute change in the toolchain will need a kernel recompile anyway maybe.
> I do confess that i read June 30 at first, and this seemed much less
> acceptable to me.

well, the kernel is definitly about the same level as the toolchain and
standard/base - changes can have very easily impact on the installer,
and it is not an option to remove the package if it is broken.

> > > > N-105  = Mon 14 Aug 06: d-i RC [directly after base freeze]
> > > > N-45   = Wed 18 Oct 06: general freeze [about 2 months after base
> > > >                         freeze, d-i RC]
> > > > N      = Mon  4 Dec 06: release [1.5 months for the general freeze]
> > > 
> > > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time with
> > > this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2 month.
> > 
> > Well, if we want to release with a newer kernel, we need to make sure
> > d-i doesn't stumble over it. Experience tells us that there are enough
> What experience ?

I was speaking about the installer. And usually there are lots of
last-minute changes that need to go in - not only new languages, but
lots of other small minor, but still important bug fixes.

> > Also, the kernel will be outdated sooner or later anyways - so, if after
> > one year the kernel is 12 or 14 months old is not too much a difference.
> Hehe, me runs sid kernels installed almost as is on all my sarge systems
> indeed, just with rebuild yaird and mininmally backported udev.

Well, but then an older kernel doesn't hurt you? :P

> Indeed, but you have only the sarge experience to go by, and taking the sarge
> experience on this is hardly fair to the huge amount the kernel team has
> devoted to streamline the process.

Of course, we have seen that the kernel build process is way more mature
now. Nobody doubts that.

> Also, i don't really believe joeyh and fjp
> are really the relevant maintainers with regard to the debian kernel and its
> application, since they lack the vision of how things could go better, or more
> thruthfully, probably lack the time and motivation to think really about the
> issue, and why should they, it is the kernel team jobs :)

Well, they are definitly the relevant people for the installer. And,
frankly speaking, at least I have good experience with both of them.

> d-i is only a part of the problem anyway, and i believe the less problematic.
> out-of-tree modules and third-party patches are a worse mess.

Hm, which out-of-tree modules do you consider to be release critical,
i.e. we cannot release without them?


Reply to: