Re: Architecture qualification
* Adam D. Barratt (adam@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120528 22:05]:
> On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 20:24 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > hurd-i386
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > Is there time to add it to testing and get it out of
> > > {break,fucked}_arches?
> >
> > I think it's not. If anything that would be for the beginning of the next
> > cycle, but not for this one. As KiBi said it would massively increase our
> > load with unblock requests while it's unlikely that everything's fixed up
> > in time.
> [...]
> > > Would it make sense to release if it was still in break_ and/or
> > > fucked_arches?
> >
> > No, not at all. It wouldn't be released at all at that point. (I.e. not copied
> > into stable.) I'm very uncomfortable having such a thing alongside our
> > regular architectures (even kfreebsd, which generally works for server stuff).
>
> There's a related question, which I just realised wasn't actually
> explicit - does it make sense to add an architecture to testing at this
> stage of the process which we don't think is releasable? My memory of
> previous discussions is that the general answer was "no", although this
> possibly depends on how one views the purpose of the testing suite.
Useful for whom?
For preparation of the next stable release: between nil and not really
much, as it isn't part of it.
For preparation of the second next stable release: maybe, if the port
might be part of it.
For stabilization of the port: potentially, depending on the status of
the port and open topic. It's always way more easy to use testing as
target than unstable, e.g. for installation media (remember the issues
DSA had when armel wasn't in testing yet).
For the open source community at large: pick your favourite answer
above.
Andi
Reply to: