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

Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 06:12:49PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities"):
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 01:22:26PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > If we found that the six month delay was repeatedly expiring with no
> > > serious attempts at non-systemd implementations of the new features, we
> > > could repeal this GR.
> > I'm pondering an amendment to copy this option but without the 6 month
> > delay clause.
> In practice, we (in Debian as a whole) generally delay things for much
> longer than that, in order to give people a chance to catch up.  

I'd also say, because delays just happen, even though we have many
people updating software timely in unstable regularily, we also have
regularily delays. I don't think we should add more artifical delays.

Also, your GR text is unclear when those 6 or 12 months start.

And then, let's says systemd and gnome together develop a feature which
is then used by gnome, does that mean that also the gnome maintainers
cannot upload new versions of gnome?

> If you just delete the bit about the delay, what will you replace it
> with ?  If you say 0 delay then it amounts to standardising and
> recommending in policy a change which actually makes programs buggy as
> soon as you apply it.

I'd replace:

   [...] The
   transition should be smooth for all users.  The non-systemd
   community should be given at least 6 months, preferably at least 12
   months, to develop their implementation.  (The same goes for any
   future enhancements.)


   [...] The
   transition should be as smooth as possible for all users including 
   those of alternative init systems.

> In other words: is it really not worth waiting a very short time in
> Debian terms (1/4 of a release cycle)

this delay might well cause further delays to the release cycle, thus 
making the release cycle longer (and thus the impact even smaller, one 
could say... ;)

> FTAOD of course what you propose is up to you.

thanks! and, somewhat btw, many thanks for your stated goal of shifting
these, aehm, issues from fights to bugs. Very much appreciated (and quite
successful, I think.)

I'm trying to do the same. I'm really not sure I could rank this proposal
above NOTA with the delay clause, while without I think I could very well.


       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: