Hello
I may write exactly the same thing as Steve Langasek but I just have
to tell why I would like to keep testing.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:56:36PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
>
> > > Some improvements have already been proposed by Eduard Bloch and
> > > Adrian Bunk: freezing unst
> > The Debian Desktop Distribution will be something like this. I believe
> > more details will be available soon. Until then,
> > http://debiandesktop.org/ has a concept paper.
>
> Is this a fork from the main debian distribution?
No. Packages will migrate from `unstable' into the desktop tree b
On 25 Oct 2004 13:05:51 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>> * One of Testing's goals was to be 95% releasable at all times.
>> * It hasn't been.
>> * Why not?
>> (a) RC bugs
>> (b) Can't install it
>> (c) Security vulnerabilities
> This is the crux of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/28/2004 01:43 AM, Christoffer Sawicki wrote:
> The Debian Desktop Distribution will be something like this. I believe more
> details will be available soon. Until then, http://debiandesktop.org/ has a
> concept paper.
Is this a fork from the
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041028 22:00]:
> Also note that there are _many_ patches in the BTS for RC (and many other
> bugs). But RC bugs do not get fixed in time [0] this also shows that a
> number of packages are not being properly maintained and we maybe could
> maybe
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:03:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Trivial analysis:
()
> The release managers have been putting some effort into (a)(1) over the
> past year, and there's four of them now instead of just one. How much effort
> has the project been putting into the other factors?
* Jan Nieuwenhuizen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041028 14:05]:
> Thomas Bushnell writes:
> > So the RC bugs should not be blocking release unless they are *new* RC
> > bugs which don't already exist.
> I'd word that a bit differently: the definition of an RC bug should
> *never* allow a bug still prese
Thomas Bushnell writes:
> So the RC bugs should not be blocking release unless they are *new* RC
> bugs which don't already exist.
I'd word that a bit differently: the definition of an RC bug should
*never* allow a bug still present in stable now (+ security.stable) to
reach the level of RC.
Jan
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:05:51PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > * One of Testing's goals was to be 95% releasable at all times.
> > * It hasn't been.
> > * Why not?
> >(a) RC bugs
> >(b) Can't install it
> >(c) Security vulnerabi
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:47:49PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I have a simple question for you: have you actually talked to those
> currently managing our releases before drafting this GR?
For comparison, when drafting the proposal for package pools and testing,
the folks actually managing th
> Every half a year you make a snapshot of testing, so you have a kind of
> stable release. Perhaps not 100% stable like stable, but at least not so
> horrible outdated.
The Debian Desktop Distribution will be something like this. I believe more
details will be available soon. Until then, http://
Hi, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Maybe. What is the alternative? Continue with the current method and
> release Edge... 2009 or so?
The beast will be called "Etch", not 'Edge'. Its timing, for the
most part, depends on a couple of sticklers like "multi-arch support",
"archive split" and "resolve the GFD
* Marco d'Itri wrote:
> My solution? Stop releasing, and leave this to entities which are
> motivated enough (or well-financed enough, which is the same thing)
> to do it.
You are about seven month too late. Or about five too early.
Norbert
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/25/2004 12:44 AM, Eduard Bloch wrote:
| Ehm... what is wrong with running stable with backports? Why do you not
| install a such combination for your parents, what is wrong with that?
|
| - Missing few important pieces of software? Backport them
Anthony Towns writes:
> * One of Testing's goals was to be 95% releasable at all times.
> * It hasn't been.
> * Why not?
> (a) RC bugs
> (b) Can't install it
> (c) Security vulnerabilities
This is the crux of the problem, I think, but I'm a little con
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 05:35:57PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> * Nikita V. Youshchenko [Sun, Oct 24 2004, 03:53:23PM]:
> > Probably there are non-technical problems with the uncoming release. But
>
> There are, as described before. For example, I cannot see any life sign
> of our FTP masters. How
On Oct 24, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>whole issue is about. We need to release faster. Faster releases are
>only feasible if enough developers are motivated. They are motivated
>if Unstable is blocked and they must care about the release instead
>of working on stuff t
#include
* Nikita V. Youshchenko [Mon, Oct 25 2004, 12:17:15AM]:
> In fact, existance of testing allows me to be a user and a developer at the
> same time.
>
> You may state that such reason has nothing to do with release process, for
> which testing was originally proposed. Yes, I agree. Howe
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Wouter Verhelst [Sun, Oct 24 2004, 11:41:33AM]:
>
> > > Very few bug reports from testing users are of any value at all.
> >
> > I respectfully disagree here.
> >
> > With most of my packages, bugs get filed only when
* Eduard Bloch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041025 15:10]:
> At least they won't poison Sid with fresh things that may others life
> more difficult. Eg. new library versions.
And why should that work better than now? The developers _are_ asked to
not poison sid. The advantage of testing is however that we
* Eduard Bloch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041025 15:00]:
> #include
> * Joey Hess [Sat, Oct 23 2004, 08:36:18PM]:
>
> > > not look appear as critical for maintainer, or not important enough to
> > > touch
> > > package in the holy "frozzen" state). Such bugs are a disaster, they make
> > > our definit
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 05:57:05PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Marco d'Itri [Sat, Oct 23 2004, 10:06:24PM]:
> > On Oct 23, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ABSTRACT
> > You are trying to force developers to work on item x, which they dislike,
> > by forcing them to
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 05:51:47PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Joey Hess [Sat, Oct 23 2004, 08:36:18PM]:
> > > not look appear as critical for maintainer, or not important enough to
> > > touch
> > > package in the holy "frozzen" state). Such bugs are a disaster, they make
> > > our
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 05:44:31PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Remember, Debian is a volunteer project, you cannot force people to do
> > something they do not want to.
>
> Motivation is the only factor to make them do things. Having to care
> about the release in order to continue the "fun wor
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:33:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> >> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
> >>
> >> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> >>
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 10:44:58PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> > thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
> >
> > - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> > - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of w
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > IMHO it's somewhat silly to "stop the experiment now" and drop
>> > testing. Although there are problems with testing, there *are*
>> > well-known positives of having it.
>>
>> All the known positives are outweighted by the negative issues as
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:56:36PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> One of the first and most known things: it puts a lot of outdated packages on
> the head of our users! Yes, testing sounds like a good compromise for people
> that want to have bleeding edge software without taking the risk, but we sa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> #include
>
> * Nikita V. Youshchenko [Sun, Oct 24 2004, 03:53:23PM]:
> > > #include
> >
> > IMHO it's somewhat silly to "stop the experiment now" and drop
> > testing. Although there are problems with testing, there *are*
> > well-known positives
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 08:44:47PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>
> Getting people motivated should not be done in a way that makes - I hope
> - many of them unhappy. To get back to your point - blocking uploads to
> unstable will not make more people concentrate on the release. They'll
> surely fi
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Joey Hess [Sat, Oct 23 2004, 08:36:18PM]:
>
> > > not look appear as critical for maintainer, or not important enough to
> > > touch
> > > package in the holy "frozzen" state). Such bugs are a disaster, they make
> > > our definition of a Stable release absurd.
> > > - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> > > - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
> > >synching stuff. This eliminates the need for testing-security. See
> > >the last part of the paper for details.
> >
> > Doing this would result in many users who currently
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 07:32:18AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > You _are_ aware that this is approximately how it was done before woody, no?
> With three 1-month test cycles to get frozen into a reasonable and releaseable
> state?
Eh? potato was frozen on the 16th January, 2000; it was release
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:53:23PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > #include
> Yes, there are problems with current scheme. So one should write down the
> facts and do a careful, in-detail, emotion-less analysis of each problem
> and it's reasons.
Trivial analysis:
* One of Testi
#include
* Wouter Verhelst [Sun, Oct 24 2004, 11:41:33AM]:
> > Very few bug reports from testing users are of any value at all.
>
> I respectfully disagree here.
>
> With most of my packages, bugs get filed only when the transition to
> testing has been complete for quite a while already, excep
#include
* Marco d'Itri [Sat, Oct 23 2004, 10:06:24PM]:
> On Oct 23, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ABSTRACT
> You are trying to force developers to work on item x, which they dislike,
> by forcing them to not work on item y, which they like more. You are
> apparently oblivious to
#include
* Joey Hess [Sat, Oct 23 2004, 08:36:18PM]:
> > not look appear as critical for maintainer, or not important enough to touch
> > package in the holy "frozzen" state). Such bugs are a disaster, they make
> > our definition of a Stable release absurd. Yes, Debian Stable has become a
> > bu
#include
* Steinar H. Gunderson [Sat, Oct 23 2004, 10:36:16PM]:
> > - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> > - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
> >synching stuff. This eliminates the need for testing-security. See
> >the last part of the paper for details.
>
#include
* Gergely Nagy [Sat, Oct 23 2004, 10:44:58PM]:
> > - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> > - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
> >synching stuff. This eliminates the need for testing-security. See
> >the last part of the paper for details.
>
> Doing
#include
* Nikita V. Youshchenko [Sun, Oct 24 2004, 03:53:23PM]:
> > #include
>
> IMHO it's somewhat silly to "stop the experiment now" and drop testing.
> Although there are problems with testing, there *are* well-known positives
> of having it.
All the known positives are outweighted by the n
> #include
IMHO it's somewhat silly to "stop the experiment now" and drop testing.
Although there are problems with testing, there *are* well-known positives
of having it.
Yes, there are problems with current scheme. So one should write down the
facts and do a careful, in-detail, emotion-less an
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:33:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> >> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
> >>
> >> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> >>
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:56:36PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> > thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
> >
> > - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> > - drop Testing and co
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Debian Testing is not stable and is not mature. It is full of shitty bugs
> (let me define this term as name for ugly bugs that bother the users but do
> not look appear as critical for maintainer, or not important enough to touch
> package in the holy "frozzen" state). Such b
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:52:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:33:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> > >> thread already. I suggest to do it in
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:33:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> >> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
> >> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> >> - drop
Hi, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Very few bug reports from testing users are of any value at all. They
> usually either report some transient dependency problem that the
> maintainer can't fix anyway, or report something that has already been
> fixed in the unstable package.
You can't fix *this* depend
Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
>> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
>>
>> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
>> - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
>>sync
El sÃb, 23-10-2004 a las 12:56 +0200, Eduard Bloch escribiÃ:
[...]
> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
>synching stuff. This eliminates the need for testing-security. See
>the last part of the paper for details.
> - ab
> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
>
> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting time on
>synching stuff. This eliminates the need for testing
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:56:36PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> It may sound a bit radical, but core points have been mentioned in the
> thread already. I suggest to do it in a more radical way:
>
> - unstable lockdown in the freeze
> - drop Testing and concentrate on work instead of wasting tim
On Oct 23, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ABSTRACT
You are trying to force developers to work on item x, which they dislike,
by forcing them to not work on item y, which they like more. You are
apparently oblivious to the fact that most developers will probably
spend their time on item
52 matches
Mail list logo
