On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:25:13 +0100 Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2008, 13:09 +0000 schrieb Neil Williams: > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:43:03 +0100 > > "Sandro Tosi" <morph@debian.org> wrote: > > It would make things easier to release Lenny if all (or very > > nearly all) activities in unstable that were unrelated to the > > release *were* actually stopped. > Then the release process is buggy. If we need to freeze both testing > and unstable, what's the virtue of testing in the first place? The virtue of testing is that it is a closed environment for testing, at least during the freeze. Entry to testing during the release freeze is tightly controlled. Entry to unstable is not, however, unstable is where the bugs in testing actually get fixed and debugged. Most developers are running unstable but have testing chroots - builds are done in unstable, using packages from unstable. The problem is that RC bugs can be discovered in any distribution but only fixed in unstable (usually). RC bugs in stable are only fixed at release updates, RC bugs in testing have to wait for a fix in unstable. The only other solution is to retain all intermediate versions between stable and unstable so that if an RC bug is discovered in testing, the package can be rolled back to the version before the bug - that is a lot of work and no guarantee that it would even work. Anyway, that's a discussion for debian-devel, not mentors. > > Lenny is my priority and it saddens me that > > other maintainers and DD's don't seem to feel the same way. > No, the current release process means: don't do anything for > 6 > months and then rush to just catch up with upstream. It means keeping > bugs around that are fixed upstream. It means users asking on > upstream's list about bugs we ship in unstable that upstream fixed > months ago. Only 6 months? Not bad. Besides, everyone looks forward to breaking unstable in the days after a release - we've got to have some fun. If you want to be closer to upstream, try gentoo. ;-) Debian unstable is not about being days behind upstream, it is about developing Debian as a complete operating system. We have to have one place where we can routinely break stuff - that place is unstable (as everyone will find out in the weeks after the Lenny release). > > experimental - why is that such a bad thing? > "Warning: This package is from the experimental distribution. That > means it is likely unstable or buggy, and it may even cause data > loss." ... so do packages in unstable, that's why we have RC bugs and Britney. There really isn't that much difference between unstable and experimental, except that experimental does not have to be complete. During a release freeze, experimental is a good place to be, if you want to keep up with upstream. > > Why do people react so badly to a recommendation to upload to > > experimental? It's just a name, a label. > No, it isn't. At a minimum, I will need to build and upload that > package again into unstable later. Is that such a hardship? If you want to keep that close to upstream, you'll have a new upload available anyway. What is the priority - Lenny or being seconds behind upstream? > Experimental packages are > autobuilt on a best-effort basis, which may or may not cover all > architectures. And experimental has far less users, due to its (well) > experimental nature. True, but then during a release freeze, Debian doesn't actually benefit from users of packages that are not part of the upcoming release. > > It doesn't have to mean that the package is experimental, it > > simply means that it isn't suitable for what is currently happening > > in unstable (which, in case anyone is still in doubt, is the final > > preparations for the Lenny release). > That's the part where opinions differ. Testing was created for what > currently unstable is used for. We should freeze testing and freeze > unstable instead. Typo? freeze both instead? > > Everyone has to take account of > > transitions and blocks in unstable between releases, the release > > freeze itself is just another issue to consider with regard to > > unstable. Unstable isn't 100% available every single day between > > freezes, there are constant issues that mean that uploads need to > > be delayed or put into experimental. That's why we have > > experimental. > > > Sorry, but your description doesn't match at all with both devref and > the warning about experimental packages. The less cruft gets uploaded to unstable during a release freeze, the quicker we can get the release out of the door and get back to a situation where the normal rules apply. You quoted the developer reference - that relates to "normal practice", times outside a release freeze. If freezes can be shortened, everyone wins. You get the kind of unstable and experimental that you expect and Debian gets a stable release. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpZjqo6qrb8M.pgp
Description: PGP signature