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

Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 01:31:24PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:41:35AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > It is clear from the discussion that there would be consequences. Some
> > would be negative, some positive. I think that we have now a pretty good
> > understanding of the possibilities and their consequences. The remaining
> > problem is to count DDs heads in the two camps:
> > - "Let's focus on stable releases. A rolling release should not be
> >    provided officially by Debian."
> > - "Let's see what we can do about rolling, provided we find a way to do it
> >    without diminishing the quality of our stable releases."
> FWIW I'm in neither. My camp would be: Please do not impede our way to
> produce stable releases in any ways, do whatever you want with rolling.

I'm sorry but I find that a lame request. If, in whatever circumstances,
Debian as a project decides to care about something beyond stable
releases, for instance something called rolling, it will as a matter of
fact use power of the project for such new thing and thus distract that
power from stable releases. Always. Saying that anyone can do anything
as long as it never interferes with what we have now is exactly the
definition of keeping the status-quo, i.e. preventing improvement.
Granted, it also prevents breakage.

> I've suggested integrating aptosid (or $derivative) people inside of
> Debian as a way to provide rolling, I know that Joss did so on planet
> too e.g. That has two very important advantages:
>   * it brings in new blood *now* (and not an hypothetical later) to
>     actually take care of rolling (which doesn't make all my reservation
>     moot but I reckon does lessen their scope significantly);
>   * it brings people who know how to do that and already have
>     infrastructure to do so. We would just give them the opportunity to
>     benefit from the larger and robust infrastructure we have, while
>     taking their experience. Looks like it's win-win.

Have you asked *any* contributor of *any* project about why they didn't
put their efforts in Debian but instead into a different project?

aptosid for example claims that unstable is in fact usable by people not
too technically equiped. Debian (usually) claims, it isn't. They think,
it just needs a bit of fixing every now and then and there you go with a
fine rolling release. If we, however we could achieve it, integrated
aptosid in Debian, how would that be different to adding a rolling
release suite?

My actual point being, whether we contact developers of derivatives
first and then add rolling (or whatever it's going to be called), or add
such thing and then promote it to developers outside Debian hoping for
their interest and involvement isn't at all important while we're still
discussing if Debian wants to take care of something beyond stable


 .''`.   Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org>               www.jhr-online.de
: :'  :  Debian Developer                                 www.debian.org
`. `'`   Member of the Linux Foundation                    www.linux.com
  `-     Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe      www.fsfe.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: