Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 29/11/13 04:14, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user
>> interest to bring in sufficient install base to continue in this
>> state.
> I wonder, how is the release team measuring this? For the other ports that
> you mention, you've pointed to concrete technical problems that are in line
> with the previously-documented release qualification guidelines. kfreebsd,
> OTOH, is only listed as having "insufficient install base". But what is
> sufficient? http://popcon.debian.org/ shows numbers for kfreebsd-* that are
> greater than a number of our ports.
>
> You rightly point out that keeping the architectures in testing has a cost,
> because the architectures will block testing migration. But are the
> kfreebsd archs actually causing testing blockages, in practice? If there
> are such blockages, can you give us more information about how this has been
> the case?
I have had unusual issues on kFreeBSD with reSIProcate although that is
partly because the unit tests are so exhaustive that they expose obscure
bugs, e.g.
http://list.resiprocate.org/archive/resiprocate-devel/msg08488.html
It could be argued that the "cost" of these other architectures is not a
one-sided equation - their presence contributes in some way to the
overall quality of the software that people include in Debian. So the
net cost may be lower than people really think, but of course that
doesn't take away the fact that it is a cost that has to be paid to keep
these ports there.
Reply to: