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

Re: Don't upload LTS versions without plan for (old)stable too (was: Re: Wheezy update of irssi?)



   Hey,

* Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> [2018-03-08 15:42:47 CET]:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 03:11:25PM +0100, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> >  I've got a response by Ingo telling me that the LTS team is
> > underfunded.  For the sake of that, wouldn't it be wise to apply similar
> > judgment as the security team towards the importance of updates then,
> > and concentrate on those instead of things that aren't fixed for stable
> > or oldstable?  
> 
> That would directly interfere with the work of the security team, which
> are volunteers. Thus I'm quite afraid that this could lead to demotation
> of that team. Maybe not so wise.

 How does it interfere with the work of the security team?  I don't get
it, at all.  Let me try to rephrase it:

 I was told that the LTS team is underfunded.  How does it interfere
with the security team, *at all*, to _not_ work on issues in the LTS
release that the security team don't plan to work on in their supported
release?  That doesn't clash anywhere, and naturally, it reduces the
workload of the LTS team.

 If you still see the interference here, please elaborate.

> > Given that users now contact me, the impression that
> > through the LTS financing we get more things fixed in oldoldstable than
> > we get fixed in stable really leaves a bad impression on people.
> 
> I'm not convinced not fixing things in LTS is a good answer here.

 So you think the good answer is having an LTS release which gets more
care than our regular releases, and thus having people even less likely
to upgrade because the support in the LTS release is seemingly better?
That sounds a bit like a vendor lock-in approach, making the people
dependent on your effort.  Hmm, nice fundraising approach, though. :)

> >  So, for my own packages: You are free to LTS upload them anytime you
> > want to, but ONLY if you are also willing to check that the things get
> > fixed in our main supported releases, too.
> 
> While I totally support your request, let me tell you how I also
> perceive it: to be able to do paid work (fix LTS things) you now also
> require me to do (unpaid) volunteer work. And I am saying this while I
> also understand that it might look strange that things are fixed $there
> but not $here.

 Erm, no.  I don't require you to do unpaid volunteer work.  It would be
swift if it leads to that, and have the LTS work help recruiting more
people to work on actual Debian, but that's a completely seperate story.

 I just say that shifting your priorities of the paid work towards
packages that are receiving their fixes in the regular supported
releases too.  That naturally would reduce the workload in general and
reduce the need to point out that LTS is undersponsored.  It actually
_reduces_ the work needed, not increase it.

> > No, that doesn't mean you
> > have to personally do it yourself, but you should only upload to the LTS
> > release if there is a plan for having it done for the main supported
> > releases, mainly stable and oldstable, too.  That definitely shouldn't
> > be asked for too much.
> 
> well, just "having a plan" ("the sec team will fix it one day or mark it
> no-dsa") is probably not enough, at least if I understood your
> intentions correctly ;p

 For me that would be enough.  It's totally fine if there is a known
timegap in between, and telling the users "the sec team is working on
it" is a totally fine response to users who ask.  non-dsa would though
be a mark for non-LTS on my board.  Again, reduced workload.

 Hope this is clearer?  Thanks for making me aware that there might have
been some things not as clear as I hoped. :)

 Enjoy,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los      |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los    | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los    |


Reply to: