Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On 6/12/07, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:
Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Sorry, i forgot CUT it looks like a 0 proposal since it came first.
> How and when do you plan to start a team for that and have you
> considered who from other teams will need to join/agree on the idea?
I don't necessarily start a team for every proposal I make. :-)
Oh, i just followed the "I propose that we form a team" sentence you
wrote there. :-P
I'm interested to see what the general reception is to the ideas in CUT,
I don't know if I've identified everything that needs to be done, or
have perhaps chosen some things to do that arn't really necessary.
I think that the proposal is good and we need bless and a team with
people from the following others teams: RM team, security testing
team, d-i and probably kernel.
This new team will work for CUT and be its voice inside the others
teams, exactly as we do with Debian Desktop. Debian Desktop as a whole
isn't a goal of every related team involved, but the people involved
in the Debian Desktop are able to make a difference for our aims in
each one of them.
> >A fun though not entirely reliable data source is the "APT prefers"
> >lines inserted by reportbug in bug reports. A quick grep[1] of the BTS
> >gives:
> >
> > 51988 APT prefers unstable
> > 30351 APT prefers testing
> > 2076 APT prefers stable
> > 420 APT prefers experimental
> >(...)
> >(For bonus fun, someone could graph how these change over time..)
>
> Any idea on how to collect more reliable data in a opt-in base? Does a
> survey on pentabarf (or public acessible) during debconf makes sense?
The numbers are not entirely reliable since
a) not everyone uses reportbug
b) some people run reportbug on a machine that doesn't have the bug
c) some people file many more bugs reports than others
d) it's likey that users of some suites tend to generate more bug reports
than others
e) there's no differentiation between developers and users
d) duplicate bugs are not accounted for
But I do think that the numbers are a pretty good indication of how much
use testing receives by the kind of user/developer who contributes to
Debian. It's not clear to me how a straw poll at Debconf would result
in better numbers.
Do you think that the numbers are positive in terms of testing usage,
really? I see the numbers even if not that reliable as proof of my
argument that just a few (almost half if compared with unstable) bug
reporters are actually using testing.
Not better numbers, but statistics: x% of developers are using foo or bar.
> Wrong, if I'm asking for experimental removal I'm assuming that
> there's not a lot of people using that. Considering the rest of your
> argument, definitely a lot of people will use testing instead this
> 'new unstable'. Do you see?
No, I don't understand. As I said, unstable will not become
significantly more unstable if all experimental uploads are directed
there.
Exactly the first proposal, remove experimental and upload everything
to unstable with the difference that unstable will become not
automatic as experimental is today. Keep migration from unstable to
testing as it's and that's it.
regards,
-- stratus
http://stratusandtheswirl.blogspot.com
Reply to: