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

Re: Bug#97755: PROPOSAL] eliminating task packages; new task system

On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 06:04:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Please go back and reread the thread about this immediately after
> potato's release: the problem with tasks as they existed for potato
> was that they make it very hard to cope with RC bugs in packages in
> a task. If any one package has an RC bug and has to be removed, the
> entire task gets broken.
> That needs to be resolved before this freeze, no matter how
> complicated the code is.
> Since people seem to be more amenable to statements from authority
> than sensible reasons, take the above as a statement from the release
> manager. Woody needs tasks, and they need to be fixed compared to
> potato's implementation and the task packages in woody and sid at
> present.
> I would highly appreciate it if people would mind actually helping
> resolve this than continually harping on about why this can't possibly
> be done.

I don't see that people are harping on why this can't possibly be done.
I do see people harping on the idea that pushing the design into policy
isn't the right way to get it done.

As release manager, you (or people acting for you) can already file
release critical bugs.  Making this policy wouldn't change that in the
slightest [unless, you were hoping to cancel all existing valid policy?].

The debian maintainer for tasksel (Randolph Chung) can do all the needed
implementation stuff to support your new scheme.

If you feel that the current policy forbids this scheme, we could push
through a change that ripped out of policy the one phrase where tasks
are mentioned.

But, basically, you don't need to waste time getting permission for doing
this: if it's the right thing to do (and a superficial study seems to
indicate that it is) just go ahead and do it.


Reply to: