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

Re: Update on "upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable" status

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:59:34PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Gnome is usually really good on the portability plan (no problem with
> 2.2, 2.4), [...]

Sure. This isn't intended as a slight against you guys, or to imply you
don't do good work.

> It has built on 7 architectures without problems and I don't think we
> are magically getting a lot problems of the few missing. 

The aim is to prove yourself right.

> > pretty majorly: packages in unstable with RC bugs need to be fixed
> > _quickly_. Not immediately, maybe, but not after months and months
> > either.
> Once again we are very reactive (look on RC bug reported on gnome2.6
> packages in the BTS for the 2 last months)

Sure. The problem comes when you strike an unexpected RC problem that
you really can't get fixed for ages. The most notable cause of those
tend to be arch-specific bugs on non-i386.

> Are you asking for wide use of experimental ? 

] In order to ease some of the pressure on unstable, we're encouraging
] greater usage of experimental. The plan here is that you should upload the
] latest, release-quality packages to unstable; and the latest development
] packages to experimental. This means daily snapshots, CVS versions,
] alphas, pre-releases and so forth. [...]

    -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/08/msg00010.html

> Now unstable is supposed
> to play testing role and experimental unstable one?

No. Experimental is for major development that's likely to break things
majorly; unstable's for regular development; testing's for usability
testing, which more or less equates to "use".

> Manual builds in
> experimental give a lot of extra work to maintainer, it's not possible
> to keep this effort continualy, that's wasting too much ressource for no
> gain ...

Sure. You're not meant to do it continually, you're meant to do it once:
prove that Gnome 2.6 works on all arches (or can easily be made to do
so), that the packaging isn't completely broken, and that the packages
actually work, and you're done.

It'd be ideal if we were doing this while Gnome 2.6 was still in beta/CVS;
it'd be ideal if we do this for Gnome 2.8 before it gets out of beta/CVS,
so that it can be put into unstable shortly after it's released upstream.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: