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

Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy

On 02/05/11 at 09:30 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:20:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Yes, it's mostly "PR bullshit", and I don't expect it to significantly
> > change Debian development processes. However, communication is necessary
> > if we want to attract new users. What might change is more attention
> > from developers to what happens in testing/rolling, which is probably a
> > good thing since a better testing/rolling makes it easier to create
> > stable releases from it.
> Is that it, really? What's the point of the rename, forcing all the
> testing users to sed their sources.list? Wow. Useful.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the interest of communication.
And of course, we would keep a testing->rolling symlink to avoid breaking
the world...

> > [C] we could compromise. We could freeze rolling for 3 months, so that
> >     most of the stabilization work occurs with a single active branch,
> >     and then, for the final release preparation, fork 'frozen' off
> >     'rolling', and unfreeze 'rolling'.
> That's horrible to do because the end of the freeze is *exactly* when
> people get demotivated, and that the last rush is mostly done by very
> few people.

Isn't it partially done by very few people because the work doesn't
scale to many developers?
Anyway, the message that should be sent during the end of the freeze is:
The good thing to do is to help with the release. If you tried that, and
really cannot help anymore, then of course you are free to work on other
things, including rolling.

> Doing that will make them feel even more alone, which is a great way to
> burn them out even faster. I really don't like it.  I'd rather see ways
> on how to make the freeze shorter been explored instead.

Why would it be mutually exclusive? We could explore ways to make the
freeze shorter, and at the same time do rolling.


Reply to: