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

Re: First draft of review of policy must usage

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:51:26 +0200, Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> said: 
>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> On 10818 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote:
>>>> Can everyone please focus on the release and discuss things that
>>>> don't help to release on December 4th at all till after that date?
>>> No, the release is no reason to stop everything else.
>> It was not meant that way at all. I just don't like that people
>> start to discuss topics that are long overdue near release time...
>         In a project this size, not all activities come to a dead end
>  every couple of years for a few months. Consistent with releasing,
>  activities geared towards improving the infrastructure, subsystems,
>  and packages can and should still be on going.

Indeed, though starting such discussions near release time is unfortunate at
the least...

>         The reason I have initiated this at this point is that I was
>  not aware that policy is perceived to be so far out of whack with the
>  project processes that violations of MUST directives in policy are
>  considered to be unrelated to bugs serious enough to warrant
>  fixing -- and that policy directives linking ciolations to bug
>  severities are now considered an unreported bug in policy itself.

I rather see policy as a guideline for long term compliance, but the etch RC
policy for short term compliance. Of course there are some bugs in policy and
it's indeed a good idea to review the consitency, but I think you overreact
when you say that must directives in policy are unrelated to serious bugs...

>         Also, consider the fact that we are all (for the most part),
>  volunteers.  there a re number of demands on our time. Real life
>  intervenes. Private and pet projects go hot or cold. the release
>  process is just one such drain on our timel but there are others.

Right, though a release should be a common goal. It should be a joined effort...

>  For a process like a broad review of policy, where one needs to get
>  the buy in and eye balls of a large group of developers, it is
>  impossible to pick a time that is convenient for every one.

Sure, but that's something else than not a really good time for anyone...

>         Unlike Etch, there is no pressing directive that policy review
>  be all done by Dec 4rth; we can and should take our time and do
>  this _right_.  Correctness and completeness should be preferred over
>  speed at this point.

This is true for release work too, but the time between releases should be
manageable. If we release on Dec 4th with nasty bugs, I'd rather have we
release at middle or end of december without these nasty bugs...

Sorry if my message came across too harsh, but I do think quality of the
release is more important than quality of the policy at the moment and not
only because I'm on the release team, but because I as a user want to still be
proud to be part of Debian after Dec 4th :-)



Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint:   D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7   F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: