[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Questions to candidate Anthony Towns

On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 03:01:41PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> (Please treat this question as if it were asked on debian-devel not
> here.)

(Not really sure what difference that makes)

> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I do think it would be interesting for the project to embrace the d-i beta
> > releases and the testing-security support and turn those into regular
> > "mini-releases", without many of the standards we expect of stable,
> > but in a form that's still useful.
> That's been a goal of mine for several years. What more do you feel we
> should do on those beta releases to reach that? 

I suspect the only thing that's /necessary/ would be to announce them as
a release rather than a beta -- I'm inclined towards "snapshot release",
but maybe "preview release", or "March 2006 release" or similar would
work too. That is, admit they're not necessarily 100% great, but encourage
users to use them.

Other things that would add to that, imo, would be:

  (a) branching the archive or doing other necessary changes to ensure
      netinst CDs etc work reliably
  (b) security.d.o support against the last preview release, so that
      users can upgrade from CD/DVD and only have minimal daily downloads
  (c) having it be an equally important part of the project to stable
      point releases, including a mail to -announce and similar

I'm not sure if branching the archive's feasible, but it at least becomes
plausible when the mirror split's done shortly; likewise I don't know
how plausible meaningful security.d.o support is, but I think it's worth
a shot. I suspect there are other things people could think up too,
but those are my ideas.

> Another thing we don't do right now is keep the DVDs and larger CDs
> static as released, they continue being updated each week.

I presume that means that they were broken a week or two ago when stuff
was switching over to the current d-i? 

> So is it just a matter of terminology, perception, and polish; or do you
> see other major areas where we should improve?

I don't think it's a matter of polish at all (well, with the exception
of things eventually breaking as development continues), mostly one of
changing the perception to be from a "beta" to a "release", and doing
the work necessary to make that perception valid.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: