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

Re: another question to all candidates about stable point releases

* Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> [2006-03-07 11:18:31]:

> he@ftwca.de (Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt) writes:
> > What would you do to make regular point releases possible?
> An even more interesting question for all of the candidates is "what do you
> think should be included in point releases"?  
> Point releases are currently primarily a folding-in of security fixes, with 
> the occasional exception for fixing some bad but not security-related bugs.
> Should other content be acceptable for point releases?  Do you know about
> volatile and have some vision for how it should evolve and/or relate to the
> rest of our release processes?  Etc.

Actually I discussed this with our release managers today, since
I was wondering if it would be sensible and feasable to include
more progressive (as in "newer") software into stable.

It seems to be sensible and without any negative side effects to
include everything from volotile into point releases. That would
give us up to date spam filtering, virus patterns etc and would
be of great use to our users.

It should also be possible to include newer leaf applications
that do not break the existing interfaces, like e.g. macro
programming interfaces of Open Office. Leaf applications are
those on the outer edge of the dependency tree that do not have
any other packages depending on them. 

All other applications or libraries require much more work to
make sure that no regressions or functionality changes took place
in the exported funcionality. Testing for that would be tedious
and difficult. Our current stable release manager would have a
hard time to do that alone.

Other then that I am in favour of including newer software into
stable, given the above boundery conditions.  

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: