On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:02 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote: > I think the original poster hit the nail on the head. The real > barrier preventing a slower-moving tree is cultural.
Somewhat. As I have said, I've mentioned several times the idea of doing a "release tree" to go along with each release. Support on these trees would be essentially equivalent to our security support model. We would support only packages marked stable. Of course, we also understand that since we're building off upstream's work, there *will* be times when a version bump is necessary to reduce our workload. Basically, our rule is kinda like this. No version changes on any packages, except those which are necessary due to a security violation, or a vulnerable package's dependencies. Now, I don't know if it is the best approach, but it is the best one that I could come up with on my own that allows for a slow-moving tree with higher QA done on it (as the release trees are what we use for releases, they undergo an enormous amount of testing, in the default configuration, of course) and minimal changes. Something that would be useful would be for package maintainers that wish to participate to perform further testing and validation on packages in the release snapshot prior to its final freeze. This would give us even more eyes on the tree and hopefully provide a much higher quality snapshot once we're done. Since it seems that there is still interest in the idea, I'll start working on it some more. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
