Re: Questions to all candidates: Release importance, release blockers, release quality
* Sam Hocevar (sam@zoy.org) [070303 14:56]:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > To state it plainly: the blocker for the etch release for the past 2 months
> > or so has been the kernel. This was known, and it was stated.
> >
> > I don't remember seeing anyone from outside the kernel team step forward to
> > tackle any of the kernel's RC bugs. This is pretty understandable -- we
> > already have a large kernel team, and the package is not exactly readily
> > NMUable, so trying to focus the whole project's attention on the kernel
> > sounds like a classic mythical-man-month recipe for disaster, in addition to
> > being a pretty huge time investment for any outside developer because of the
> > kernel package's high learning curve. So what do you think should have been
> > done differently in terms of release management that would have helped keep
> > the release target?
>
> Has going back to a 2.6.17 kernel been considered? There were
> probably reasons to accept 2.6.18 only four days before base was frozen,
> but that seems all the more questionable now that the new release itself
> didn't seem to fix any bugs, yet introduced new ones (such as #410497).
Unfortunatly, 2.6.17 contains a whole bunch of other RC bugs that are
fixed with 2.6.18. So, it has been considered, but the cure would be
worse than the desease.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: