Re: why is alpha a release candidate?
On 2007-01-17 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:21:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > So the release criteria require buildd redundancy. And yet, half the
> > release candidate archs still don't have it. It gets marked in yellow
> > on http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html.
> Yes, it gets marked in yellow because this requirement has in practice been
> waived as a hard requirement for release qualification
Do we really have so few donations that we cannot afford to get
at least two buildd per architecture (or four if security-buildd are
separate) and at least one with ssh access for developers?
> The point of the arch requirements is to facilitate a release, not to
> penalize architectures.
On the list I count seven (including m68k) architectures that are listed with
incomplete buildd redundancy.
This is not only about RC bugs while we're getting closer to the release but
also important for DSAs once we have released.
As we probably do have enough manpower, money, hardware and housing offerings
but they just don't get used, would this be some issue where our
project leader could coordinate a bit? Or appoint a infrastructure delegate?
P.S.: It's funny that we're open about all and everything but debian-admin is
still a closed list and do they don't announce very much neither :-(