Re: LFS and IPv6 goals
On Tue, August 9, 2011 00:43, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thijs Kinkhorst (thijs@debian.org) [110808 10:35]:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, August 1, 2011 23:07, Neil McGovern wrote:
>> > Carried forward from last release:
>> > - IPv6 support
>> > - Large File Support
>>
>> I'm wondering why these two are still goals for the current cycle. I
>> think
>> it's safe to say that their intent has already been achieved (make
>> Debian
>> generally work well with IPv6/LFS). What's left now is some specific
>> bugs
>> tagged ipv6 or lfs, but these lists will probably never be completely
>> empty. Making a sprint on these subjects with etch and lenny was useful,
>> but now we've now reached the stage where bugs in these systems are
>> valid
>> and should be fixed, but aren't fundamendamentally different from any
>> other set of bugs.
>>
>> They aren't formulated in a SMART way, and it's not clear (to me at
>> least)
>> what in the wheezy cycle specifically is expected to happen that needs
>> release goal status. My conclusion would be to just drop the goals:
>> they've already been successful.
>
> This means to me mostly "bugs regarding these topics continue to stay
> (at least) important, and can be NMUed as RC bugs". Perhaps such
> clean-up tasks should be moved somewhere else, but until that is done,
> I think release goals is still the appropriate headings for it.
I don't think there will be a point in the future where these bugs will be
less imporant than now, so if this would be the motivation we would have
to keep them as release goals forever. It's with good reason that release
goals need to be SMART, and these goals currently aren't.
It's already very well defendable to tag lack of IPv6 or LF support as
'important' in the current day and age, just because of the omnipresence
of these technologies. There's no need for something to be a release goal
to make it an important bug, when there's a common sense rationale for
that.
However, if you want to formalise that more, the long term solution would
be to declare it policy that all packages should support IPv6 or LF's, not
to keep carrying these goals around forever.
Thijs
Reply to: