On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the > crafting of a prospective release plan for etch. The release team and > the ftpmasters are mutually agreed that it is not sustainable to > continue making coordinated releases for as many architectures as sarge
That makes sense. > Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures > starting with etch. They will be released with sarge, with all that That doesn't. I see no problems with making an initial etch release consisting of whatever archs are ready, SCC or not. If a given arch later has a working etch distribution and installer, why not publish an etch release for it, even if it is on SCC? There are serious problems with unstable on some machines. Moreover, I haven't seen anything about the security implications of relegating so many archs to SCC, and to unstable-only status at that. > - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number > required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages > > - the value of N above must not be > 2 It seems to me that if an arch can keep up with builds, why impose this artificial restriction? > is freed up by moving the other architectures to scc.debian.org). > This will drastically reduce the architecture coordination required in > testing, giving us a more limber release process and (it is hoped) a > much shorter release cycle on the order of 12-18 months. That is a Good Thing. However, why eliminate out of hand the possibility of ever making stable releases for the other 7 archs? Even if they release later than those 4? > ftpmasters also intend to provide porter teams with the option of > releasing periodic (or not-so-periodic) per-architecture snapshots of > unstable. I'd rather see the option to produce the same per-architecture snapshot of testing as everyone else uses; that is, an etch release. > distributed via ftp.debian.org itself. The criterion for being distributed > from ftp.debian.org (and its mirrors) is roughly: > > - there must be a sufficient user base to justify inclusion on all > mirrors, defined as 10% of downloads over a sampled set of mirrors That will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, won't it? Fewer people would ever download a SCC arch, so how would it ever be possible for a SCC arch to break into ftp.debian.org? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
