Re: what about the mldonkey package?
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:47:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:37:05AM +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> > ps : concerning upload to debian, i prefer to be sure of the quality of
> > the 1st version of mldonkey to enter unstable, because, first user will
> > judge mldonkey on this first package ( if i fail, i will lose all
> > credibility for this package ).
>
> Notice that :
>
> 1) Once you upload the packages, you will have to wait a few weeks for
> it to be read by James Troup or another ftp master and then added to
> the override file, if there is no problems or such.
>
> 2) If it works and is lintian clean, what are you afraid with regard
> to quality ? Anyway, you can always do some package checking during
> the time the package is sitting in NEW, and upload a fixed version
> once it has been accepted or even before that.
>
MLDonkey quality is not very stable. For example, 2.4.2 seems to crash
from time to time ( i have just restarted one, because it just has
crashed ).
So if the first version people try crash after one or two hour, guess
how many people will stay on this software...
I just want to find some release which are enough stable to be a good
first experience... I intend to keep a small archive with really
unstable mldonkey package ( CVS in other word ), to be tested by a few,
in order to see if it is enough stable.
> 3) The more people review the package, the more testing it will get,
> and it may well give you an experience with the BTS you probably will
> be needing for your NM application anyway.
>
That is another point. To my mind, there is some obvious bug in my
script and in mldonkey whichcan be discover by a few. If the few which
test it can't find any obvious bug, there is a chance to be tested by a
more widely range of people who can report me bug which are less
obvious.
Taken the example of crash. I know 2.4.2 crash every 12/24 h. So i will
wait to have a more stable version ( 2.4.3 was out on wednesday, i will
probably packaged 2.4.4 next monday ). I run the test for a few people (
including me, wait for user experience on mldonkey_user@nongnu.org, see
if it is a good release. The bug is obvious ( i have not yet track
it, but i know there is a bug ). If i release it today, about 2000
people will fill bug against mldonkey-server saying that it crashes
often. I will send to upstream all the bug, and i will probably pass all
my time to close and forward bug. Imagine, 2.4.4 is really more stable.
No one will report the bug of crashing, and they can focused on other
functionnality ( debconf should permit to configure this and this
option... ). I think it will be more accurate.
I am not "le lievre de Jean de la Fontaine", i am more a copy of "la
tortue". I prefer to be slow but it is in order to be efficient.
Off course, i am young and i have no real experience of software
developping, so if is say to many dumb assumption, i hope you will
correct me ;->
In fact, my first experience with mtink was a little disaster, i
packaged it very fast, do what i think was good, my sponsor upload it
believing in me ( i thanks him because i was very courageaous ), and
then the problem come : many bug ( RC ). I remember that no other
platform ( ppc, sh, mips, mipsel... ) can achieve to build it. That was
my fault, i forget to check all the dependcy ( all the error a beginner
made in fact ). I don't want mldonkey to be the same mess.
My first serious bug was reported by Mr Zachirrioli ( excuse if i
mispell the name ) : i depend on ocaml-native-compiler... Which is not
available on all platform. It will be corrected soon, but it is very
really a dumb thing ( i should have read more precisely the ocaml
packaging policy ).
Thanks for all your advice, if some of you want to be warned when i
release the next package ( monday or tuesday i think ) send me an email,
i will add you to my list.
Kind regard
Sylvain LE GALL
Reply to: