Re: amdgpu broken on bookworm?
On Sat 28 Aug 2021 at 22:19:05 (-0400), songbird wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> > On Sat 28 Aug 2021 at 08:36:32 (-0400), songbird wrote:
> ...
> >> just to note that using "bookworm" in your subject line can
> >> give the implication that "bookworm" is actually released which
> >> it hasn't. it is much better to use the keyword "testing" in
> >> the subject line instead.
> >
> > I don't know where you got that from.
>
> because testing has always been just testing to me, when
> the images are made and sent out as official releases with
> their signed packages and keys and all the rest that is when
> i consider them by their code names. that is when the
> release team actually releases it. just because i am following
> along while they are putting it together in testing or sid
> doesn't mean it is done.
That seems a reasonable viewpoint if you're a perpetual testing user,
living entirely in the present.
> > A Release gets a *number*.
> > (The number that might be given to trixie will depend on how
> > superstitious the Debian release team is.) It's legitimate to talk
> > about, say, features that might be retained in bookworm, but dropped
> > by trixie. That's what the codenames are for.
>
> sure, but those are all conversations about possibilities
> they're not done until they're released.
They have to be planned for in the years before release. It's
difficult to discuss future distributions without giving them
static codenames that don't shift under your feet. That's
standard practice in almost any project management.
> of course this is
> my opinion but i think the Release team also feels something
> about the meaning of the word "Official" and the whole process
> including the key signing and verification steps...
I'm not sure what you're saying here; that bookworm and trixie
aren't "official" names?
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: