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

Re: Proposal: Repository for fast-paced package backports

> >If there are other issues to solve than the lifespan of the package
> >version, they must be solved in another way.
> I agree with you, it is the best outcome. But when people with power
> (-backports ftp masters) are not willing to consider it, we have to go
> with plan B, which is less than ideal, but can move things forward.

Plan B in this case are PPAs. If you want to engage in that idea, please
do separately from the -volatile idea.

> >> As I said, gitlab was not about manpower. This new repo is completly
> >against
> >> our vision of what backports is. Therefore we don't want it within
> >the
> >> backports suite. 
> >

> If people argue both ways, how can we answer? Either it adds more work
> for -backports team or it does not. Some people say its not fair to
> add more load while ftp masters say its not about load.

As Alex laid out, it's mostly just the -backports team handling the NEW
queue. So all of this really is independent from -backports, if another
NEW queue is added (which I do not think is the best idea, but still

But, I do not think it is possible to start -volatile completely
independently. I am pretty certain there is enough man power to handle
it as a new suite, but on the other hand I am also certain there is not
enough manpower to operate a compelte set of seperate services for it.

In any case, I propose we stop discussing the who and where questions
for a while and concentrate on the what and how. I will collect the
opinions on that, and in a week or two, incorporate them into the
proposal, along with the different possibilities for implementation.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: