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

Re: why is alpha a release candidate?

On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 04:20 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 02:55:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:47 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Of course, I have a conflict of interest here as an alpha porter, so
> > > ultimately I'll defer to Andi if he thinks it's become a problem; but in
> > > general we're unlikely to cut a port from the release at this late stage
> > > without some pretty serious, long-term problems.
> > What if a security build needs to be made in these ten days?
> Then we're in the same situation we've been in any number of times before --
> a bad one, but not one that's been deemed a reason to exclude an
> architecture from release per se.

This is the first time we have the "must have two buildds" rule.  This
rule had a purpose behind it, which was *exactly* the situation we are
now in.  We are experiencing exactly the kind of problems for which this
rule was created.  This is not some kind of strange and exceptional case
which is unlike the problems the rule was created to avoid; this is
exactly the case the rule was created to avoid.

So, why do we have the rule?  If the rule exists so that it can be
ignored in the central case the rule was about, then let's get rid of
the rule.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: