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

Re: another question to all candidates about stable point releases

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:18:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>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.

I mostly agree with the current policy that Joey follows - stable
point releases should be a roll-up of security fixes and grave bug
fixes only. The only places where I'd add to it would be for limited
*data* packages like virus definitions, but to be really useful they
need to be updated much more frequently than our point
releases. That's where volatile fits in, providing more timely
updates. Pushing recent versions of volatile packages into the point
release _may_ help in some circumstances, but it would have to be
considered on a point-by-point basis.

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"C++ ate my sanity" -- Jon Rabone

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: