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

Re: the short road from rc1 to rc2 to lenny

Hi Petter,

On Samstag, 23. Januar 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Well, then I disagree with your proposal.  

Well, of course you are free to do so, but so far you are the only one from 
the project. Everybody else was in favor so far. (Mostly on irc, but I've 
also got comments via email.)

> I believe we should fix as 
> much as possible before release, and that all the fixes currently
> commited and some more should be included in the release.

Etch security support will run out in 23 days from now. Following my timeline 
we will release in 16 days, leaving people 7 days to upgrade, which is 
already quite bad. Shortening this time even further, or forcing people to 
either run a unreleased version or an unsupported version is even worse.

> All of them 
> are fixes needed to increase our chances to compete on equal ground
> with the Windows and Ubuntu systems shools will consider to use
> instead of Debian Edu/Skolelinux.

By releasing later we are also forcing them to choose something else.

> We need to get as many hardware 
> models working out of the box, and at least the same models that used
> with the Etch version, for schools to accept to install the Lenny
> based version. 

Do you plan to maintain our own kernel?

> Yesterday, Viggo in Narvik discovered that a HP 
> Proliant DL385 G6 failed to boot, with a "illegal opcodes" message.
> This worked out of the box with Ubuntu, and these issues need to be
> fixed with our Lenny version for schools to be able to use it.

This needs to be submitted as a bug first.

> > I got scared when I saw your 2nd commit on this new feature: "Make
> > script more robust" - it's totally new code, widely untested and
> > definitly not robust.
> The code is trivial, and as far as I can tell obviously correct.  If
> you have issues with the code, please bring them up on the table. 

No, I'm trying to release, improve the manual, work on the release notes, 
include translation updates. Reviewing unneeded code changes distracts me 
(and other people) from releasing, thus contributing to the problem at hand.

> I am aware of the wish to release, but I also believe we need to
> release something that is working correctly and is useful for schools.

Lenny is useful as it is, for many schools. 

> The fixes I have implemented the last few months have lingered for a
> long time without anyone else noticing them or trying to fix them.  We
> could not release months ago, because not enough people were working
> on making the distribution releasable.

Yes. But we also need to draw a line now and somewhere.

> > Yes. Introducing yet more changes will also distract us from this work.
> I do not believe this is the case.  PR work do not (and probably
> should not) be done by the same people doing the technical work.

Right. But we also should concentrate on squeeze now, as squeeze will be 
frozen in 2 months. So we should test squeeze (not lenny!) now and file bugs, 
to make sure schools will be able to use that. Else we will run into the same 
problems again and again.

> And I believe we are close but not yet there.  Rushing things will
> just harm us in the long run.  A lot of people believe the Skolelinux
> project is dead, and will give us _one_ chance to prove our worth with
> the Lenny version.  If it fail to install or work properly, they will
> leave us behind and move to Edubuntu or some non-free distribution.  I
> do not want that to happen.

Not releasing also gives people the impression the project is dead.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: