Re: Call for Jessie Release Goals

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

On 2013-09-25 21:15, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:06:37PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> On 2013-09-25 19:02, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>>> Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> schrieb:
>>>> Goals which were accepted for the Wheezy cycle, but did not reach
>>>> completion, can be carried over for Jessie. However, we require
>>>> re-submission of those goals (and any that have been discussed up until now
>>>> - we are starting with a clean slate) to ensure that they are still
>>>> realistic and have active developers working on them. We will in principle
>>>> accept carried-over goals which still meet the basic criteria.
>>>
>>> That applies for the hardening release goal. There's been quite some
>>> progress and things have started to roll on their own, but there's
>>> quite some work todo.
>>>
>>> So please re-add it for jessie. 
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>         Moritz
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is the goal page[1] up to date etc.?  The wiki suggests it has not been
>> updated in the past year.  Are all the advocates from Wheezy still
>> behind it (I took the liberty of CC'ing all of you).
> 
> Most of the tracking happened inside SVN, AFAICS nothing needs to be updated ATM.
> 
> Cheers,
>         Moritz
> 
> 

You might want to do as/wheezy/jessie/ on it. :)

>From what I can tell, the "subgoal-important" claims to only miss 5-7
packages[1], so I guess we can expect that subgoal will be fixed in
Jessie if the goal is carried over.

Would it be possible to include a summary of the status of the
individual subgoals?  Possibly in a different page that just once a day
(or week) aggregates the status of the subgoals (bonus if you graph it).
 FWIW, I did see the "Graph of progress", but does not appear to track
the subgoals but rather the total number of ELF binaries with some kind
of hardening[2].

Do you think you have time to finish all of the subgoals in Jessie and
if not do you have a priority between the remaining subgoals?

~Niels

Also, should I keep the CCs?

[1] iputils (656023) listed in the svn appears to have been fixed.

[2] That is also interesting, so do keep it.  However, since the focus
seems to be the subgoals, I would like to have some accessible numbers
on those.