Re: Grace period for kernel-source uploads

[dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org>]

On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 17:30 -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, maximilian attems wrote:
> 
> > disagreed,
> > all the archs managed in the d-k svn got their updates steadily.
> > problems are the trees outside of it as well d-i udebs relying
> > on a stable abi, which is easily broken on many security fixes.
> 
> Quite on the contrary, with the current way of doing things we are 
> continuously in a state with a skew between k-i versions on different 
> arches. As Anders described, every arch maintainer builds the k-i against 
> there own "arch-specific" k-s upload, which causes sync problems whenever 
> a complete rebuild on all arches is required. I believe, that ideally k-i 
> for _all_ arches should be rebuilt after every k-s upload, and Sven is 
> working on a single source package for all k-i images to implement exactly 
> that.
> 
> > don't think so,
> > agreed with dillinger that current way works.
> 
> In the recent DPL campaign a lot of attention was focused on the lack of 
> communication withing Debian. My proposal is one way to somewhat improve 
> it within a kernel team, for what it's worth. If people insist on doing it 
> the old way, fine with me.

Personally, I think it helps to eliminate points of required
communication when dealing with largeish teams.  We shouldn't eliminate
the ability nor the desire, just the need.  Requiring approval/review
points should only be done when necessary, imo, because they will tend
to create bottlenecks, and angry people if they need to be bi-passed on
occasion.