Re: why is alpha a release candidate?
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 02:47:07PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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.
I've already answered this: we don't have such a rule. It was waived for
etch as a result of negative feedback and poor compliance across our
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.