Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:45:48PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Meaning that they are kicked out and told to start their own project
>> where they can take matters in their own hands. Just what they've
>> always wanted to do, I am sure.
> It's not ideal, but the fact remains that the people carrying the
> load for getting the release out aren't capable of dealing with it
> any more.
Which is no reason for forbidding other people from doing the work.
> The current situation is *broken*. This is an attempt to fix it.
Perhaps it attempts to do that; but what it really does is to forbid
fixes.
>> > The differences? Port packages don't go in to Debian mainline
>> > testing. However, this does not preclude them from setting up a
>> > separate testing if they like.
>> Which part of "unstable-only" does one of us fail to understand?
> This is not set in stone.
That combination of letters explicitly appears in the proposal we are
discussins.
> Unstable-only is simply what the current team is willing to set up
> and support themselves.
It is what the team proposes as the rule for all of Debian.
> Nowhere in the email does it preclude the ports from setting up
> something to manage themselves.
Which part of "unstable-only" does one of us fail to understand?
>> And you still claim that having this solution (non-solution if you ask
>> me) forced on an architecture from above constitutes "flexibility to
>> take matters in their own hands"???
> Yes. All the tools are there to do exactly what they want to do, if they so
> choose.
But only if they leave Debian and start to do what they want to in
another organization. Because the plan says that *within* Debian
nothing but unstable will be allowed.
>> However, they have now made it their job to tell the ports that they
>> *must not* move alongside the rest of Debian, whether or not the
>> portes want to or not.
> It's the decision of those doing the work.
No. This plan is the decision of the RMs and ftpmasters telling
certain ports *not* to do the work, at least not within Debian.
> Those doing the work of managing the release, managing d-i, and
> managing our backend all say that this isn't working. Bitch all you
> want, but the problems have to be solved and the current load placed
> on the porters isn't solving it.
I fail to see ANY argument why forbidding the ports from having
testing and stable suites solve any of the problems you are alluding
to.
>> > This does not preclude porters from making a stable release.
>> Which part of "unstable-only" does one of us fail to understand?
> Which part of "proposal" does one of us fail to understand?
I fail to see how "proposal" means "must not be disagreed with".
Please explain.
>> If you think a snapshot makes a distribution stable, then why do we
>> have testing and freezes for the main architectures at all?
> A snapshot doesn't make a distribution stable. A snapshot (or
> "freeze" if you'd rather) followed by a stabilization period makes a
> distribution stable.
And the Vancouver plan says that lesser distributions are not allowed
to have freezes and stabilization periods. They are *unstable-only*.
>> > I think that when a port makes a stable release
>> ... which it is not allowed to according to the Vancouver plan.
> Got a quote for this?
"unstable-only".
> Everything I've read and heard from those involved says differently.
Everything I've read and heard from those involved says that the
lesser architectures are only allowed to have unstable.
>> Why do the RM's think it is their job to *prevent* the lesser ports
>> from releasing?
> They're not preventing them from doing any such thing.
Yes they are. "Unstable-only".
--
Henning Makholm "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
