Re: usrmerge -- plan B?

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Michael Stone writes ("Re: usrmerge -- plan B?"):
> No way we can hit that date with a forced merge. Where are the testing 
> reports showing that this actually works on a broad range of systems? 
> And now we're getting into the winter holiday season? Pushing that now 
> would be nuts.

I would also like to point out that change planning is the job of
someone who wants to change something.  That includes not only:
 - figuring out what the new state should look like
 - developing tools to switch individual systems etc.
which has been done but also:
 - planning what changes need to happen throughout Debian and
   its ecosystem, in what order, to avoid lossage
 - writing that plan up and getting it reviewed by everyone who
   is likely to have useful input
 - specifically covering what kinds of residual lossage can be
   expected, and what the plan is for handling that
 - in a case like this, getting at least a semiformal sign-off
   from the Release Team
 - throughout, engaging positively with sceptics, to reassure
   them (rather than pressing on or dismissing concerns)
none of which seem to have been done.

We should back off at the very least until we have a transition plan
which we can discuss and possibly get rough consensus on.  Personally
what I have seen so far gives me little confidence.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.