Bug#726536: Processed: bts
Daniel Baumann wrote (03 Nov 2013 17:28:38 GMT) :
> On 11/03/2013 05:57 PM, intrigeri wrote:
>> I had a quick glance before I proposed this mid-October, and it seems
>> to me that the fixes needed against the current stable version are not
>> too involved
> [...] just adjusting the boot order is not enough.
OK, thanks for the hints.
> i'm strongly against having half-backed systemd support in 3.x that
> users are supposed to use/is supposed to work.
Perfectly makes sense.
> we're always making sure that live-* works on the previous stable
> version. we do encurage people to use it that way, and we do support
> them doing that.
Hmm. An explanation of how things look from my PoV, and how it impacts
me both as a user and a (potential) contributor, might be helpful for
the live-* project and its users.
First, I acknowledge the efforts put into making the "debian" branches
compatible with Debian stable. I think it's important to do it so that
contributors have a chance to use their code without waiting for the
next Debian stable, even more so since it's often too painful to
backport anything non-trivial from "debian" to "debian-old-*" (Git is
clever with file renaming, but still).
However, with my live-* user hat on, with my fair share of experience
trying to do so, I must say I've personally given up a while ago on
the idea of using the non-stable branches in production. (Nor would
I recommend anyone to do so. Everyone has their own needs in terms of
where the cursor should be between "constantly usable" and "constantly
broken", and surely others have different experiences than me. I would
be curious to hear how other live-* downstreams feel about it, but I'm
not the one who will draw consequences of such a survey, so I don't
intend to start it myself.)
A sad consequence of giving up on this, added to the fact that
backporting features is a pain, is that it's hard for me to usefully
contribute to live-* nowadays. I admit it's not purely a consequence:
this is free software, and I'm told I'm welcome to express my thoughts
and give a hand. Likely, if I put much more effort into the live-*
project, then it could become manageable for me to run non-stable (I
would start with a. setting up QA processes and tools to ensure the
"debian" branch doesn't break anything I care about too often; b.
helping bootstrap processes to make important decisions collectively;
c. thinking the roadmap through together, and more importantly,
updating it regularly to get a clearer sense of how we're doing and
what others can reasonably expect from us; d. reviewing and testing
code from others before it lands into the Debian archive).
Unfortunately, these days I have no time to do any substantial part of
this, and TBH I'm discouraged by the amount of energy I would need to
put in just to make this project a pleasing one for me to feel
part of.
Hoping it helps.
Take care,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
Reply to: