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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:18:44AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:36:33AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >   There is no transfer needed at all, IOW the capability to do releases
> >   from ports.debian.org exists (and is a very good thing, as Colin
> >   Watson points out in <20050314135127.GD30099@riva.ucam.org>).
> >   Still, the Release Managers should comment on their willingness to
> >   make a certain scc arch a release architecture at an advanced stage in
> >   the preparation of a release. In my view, this is one of the few
> >   scenarios that I can think of them exercising their veto power: "Yes,
> >   you meet all the requirements, but as we're 2 months away from
> >   releasing we veto its inclusion _right now_.  We put it first on our
> >   list of goals for the next release."
> If a port meets all of the requirements for being a release candidate
> architecture, and promoting it to release candidate status doesn't introduce
> too many arch-specific RC bugs that were previously being ignored, then I
> have no problem with promoting such an architecture to release-candidate
> status late in the cycle.  It would almost certainly have to be done
> pre-freeze, for sanity's sake, but that's about it, AFAICT.

Right. I wouldn't like to suddenly make an architecture a release
candidate when it hadn't been in the archive at all due to lack of
testing, but if it had been on ports.d.o for a while then adding it
shortly pre-freeze ought to be fine.


Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Reply to: