On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:51:02AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Sprint
--
We feel it would be useful for the Release Team as a whole to get
together to think about what the plans are for the next release. As
such, we're planning a sprint to meet in person. Details will follow
once diaries
On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 10:46:35AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
the 2008 GR invites to seek consensus, and in my opinion, what prove
to be anti-consensual is to divide developers into formal categories.
I have not seen such a vigourous opposition in the recent years to the
idea of accepting
Le Sun, May 08, 2011 at 10:07:53AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
I would be happy if we could stop discussing what today is just spilled milk,
given that one way or another this matter has been settled.
To clarify, Enrico wrote that “the hands of FD were rather tied” by the 2008
GR, and
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 02:04:20PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
It wasn't the GR itself. It was the fact that these changes to the NM
process were actually made. I suppose it is arguable that those changes
simply would not have happened without the GR, but that indicates more
of a lack of
Enrico Zini wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 02:04:20PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
It wasn't the GR itself. It was the fact that these changes to the NM
process were actually made. I suppose it is arguable that those changes
simply would not have happened without the GR, but that
Le Sat, May 07, 2011 at 03:43:11PM +0200, Enrico Zini a écrit :
a GR was needed to be able to proceed, because the hands of FD were
rather tied by this other GR: http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_002
Hi Enrico,
the 2008 GR invites to seek consensus, and in my opinion, what prove to be
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 06:50:04PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Look at the welcoming new contributors GR; what did that actually
accomplish? There isn't anything new to show for it, there are no new
means to bring contributors in, and the number of new people
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 01:31:24PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:41:35AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It is clear from the discussion that there would be consequences. Some
would be negative, some
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt dijo [Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:15:38AM +0200]:
I understand members of the release team feel particularly responsible to
do various release-critical tasks that should have been done by the
maintainers but haven't (for various reasons). And I guess that's the
reason of
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [2011-05-03 01:20]:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
[ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a share
of DDs interested in rolling similar to the share of DDs interested in
stable releases. Unfortunately, it's very
On 02/05/11 at 16:19 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
[ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a share
of DDs interested in rolling similar to the share of DDs interested in
stable releases. Unfortunately, it's very
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:41:35AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It is clear from the discussion that there would be consequences. Some
would be negative, some positive. I think that we have now a pretty good
understanding of the possibilities and their consequences. The remaining
problem is to
On 03/05/2011 11:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It is clear from the discussion that there would be consequences. Some
would be negative, some positive. I think that we have now a pretty good
understanding of the possibilities and their consequences. The remaining
problem is to count DDs heads in
Le lundi 02 mai 2011 à 16:19 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I realize that we're often not on the mailing lists jumping up and down
and advocating for our issues, in part because Debian works great for us
and not much needs to be changed, but please remember that there are a
*lot* of us using
Hi Carsten,
A bit late on responding to your mails, but...
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:56:14AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
So if we tell users to use this repository, we're going to have
some users (I upgrade my servers to testing during the freeze and I
would enable it if it was generally
On 03/05/11 at 13:31 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 03/05/2011 11:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It is clear from the discussion that there would be consequences. Some
would be negative, some positive. I think that we have now a pretty good
understanding of the possibilities and their
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:41:35AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[...]
I've always found it strange that, as a volunteer project, we are
creating a product that is mainly used in professional
environments.
[...]
I see that as a side effect. The same qualities of stable which lead
me to rely on
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 01:31:24PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:41:35AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It is clear from the discussion that there would be consequences. Some
would be negative, some positive. I think that we have now a pretty good
understanding of
On 03/05/2011 14:54, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
What kind of guarantees are you looking for, exactly? Can you suggest
ways to acquire them?
- That it won't affect stable in bad ways.
- preventing removals from testing is a no-go.
Quite honestly, I see no reason to continue feeding this thread
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
On 02/05/11 at 16:19 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm very dubious. To take one example, if Debian stopped making stable
releases, it would no longer be usable at work, which would mean that
my ability to work in Debian would substantially
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110503 11:47]:
On 02/05/11 at 16:19 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
[ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a share
of DDs interested in rolling similar to the share of DDs
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:56:14AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
* Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-01 23:17 +0200]:
The problem is, you need to entry points, one for testing as we know it,
one for rolling.
Actually, we need two entry points each, a default one and an
exceptional one. The latter
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 12:10:42AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 01/05/11 at 23:46 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Benefits for Debian:
- attract users who think that testing is only a development branch, and
want newer software than what one finds in stable. Those users are
On 05/02/2011 12:10 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 01/05/11 at 23:46 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Benefits for Debian:
- attract users who think that testing is only a development branch, and
want newer software than what one finds in stable. Those users are
likely to be rather advanced
Hai!
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:28:06PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Size is just one ingredient. There are plenty of other ways to diminish
barrier to deploy big changes in Debian: wider commit access rights,
larger VCS repositories, more
Heya,
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
I understand members of the release team feel particularly responsible to
do various release-critical tasks that should have been done by the
maintainers but haven't (for various reasons). And I guess that's the
reason of your remark.
But
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:13:31AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Hai!
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:28:06PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Size is just one ingredient. There are plenty of other ways to diminish
barrier to deploy big
On 02/05/11 at 08:19 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 12:10:42AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 01/05/11 at 23:46 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Benefits for Debian:
- attract users who think that testing is only a development branch, and
want newer software
* Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org [110501 22:09]:
Who are they? Unlike this constant handwaving, I've shared my experience
(on #-devel), I'll repeat it here: at work we've like 10 Debian users,
some with stable, the other with unstable. Why? Because we're
developpers and if our software
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:20:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Yes, it's mostly PR bullshit, and I don't expect it to significantly
change Debian development processes. However, communication is necessary
if we want to attract new users. What might change is more attention
from developers to
On 02/05/11 at 09:30 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:20:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Yes, it's mostly PR bullshit, and I don't expect it to significantly
change Debian development processes. However, communication is necessary
if we want to attract new users.
Hi
Picking one piece that really leaves me WTF? out of this
way-too-long-thread. Happens to be a post by Lucas, but could be anyone
else too.
'rolling' is a statement by the project that we consider 'testing'
(renamed to 'rolling')
Why the heck do we start by renaming testing? This will
Hi,
On Sun May 01, 2011 at 21:53:58 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 01/05/11 at 20:51 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
On Sun May 01, 2011 at 20:02:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
2. determine who is in support of each action plan, through a GR or a
poll.
I don't think we
On Sun, 1 May 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
weren't there. But as a matter of fact, chances are that those people
wouldn't have been able to be Debian Developers today if it weren't
for the GR.
As I was the very first to apply under the GR (not in the first batch of
accepts though) I just
On 02/05/11 at 10:12 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi
Picking one piece that really leaves me WTF? out of this
way-too-long-thread. Happens to be a post by Lucas, but could be anyone
else too.
'rolling' is a statement by the project that we consider 'testing'
(renamed to 'rolling')
On 02/05/11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
On Sun May 01, 2011 at 21:53:58 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 01/05/11 at 20:51 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
On Sun May 01, 2011 at 20:02:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
2. determine who is in support of each
* Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net [2011-05-02 11:32]:
How much of that would apply if we renamed testing to rolling (because
it reinforces the PR message), but kept a symlink from testing to
rolling?
If you want that you need a GR as it overrides a delegate decision.
And I predict
* Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-02 08:08 +0200]:
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:56:14AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
* Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-01 23:17 +0200]:
The problem is, you need to entry points, one for testing as we know it,
one for rolling.
Actually, we need two entry points each, a
* Lucas Nussbaum [2011-05-02 09:20 +0200]:
On 02/05/11 at 08:19 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Also note that testing as is has not enough security support, and
read Carsten very good example of the PAM issues. How would CUT or
rolling address those?
The PAM issue outlines how splitting
George Danchev wrote:
On Friday 29 April 2011 11:46:30 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- rename 'testing' to 'rolling' to make it clear that it's usable as
a rolling release
It is also possible that a 'rename' brings no more value, but a
confusion to the users for unpredictable amount of time.
Holger Levsen wrote:
Do you think a piuparts / policy workshop (or something) is useful at
DebConf11?
Please! There's never too much chocolate, cheese or QA in Debconf :)
--
.''`. Hate's no fun if you keep it to yourself
: :' : -- The life of David Gale
`. `'
`-
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:00:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
First of all I think you should concede that the exercise you're asking
us to do cannot be done as easily as you did yours.
I don't concede that. I've read your mail, and to sum up you say:
(Note that the concede was on a side
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:43:18PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
Testing also has just little protection against severe breakage if it is
frozen and updates need to go through rarely used suites. An example
illustrates this quite well:
Thanks for this example Carsten. However, one example is not
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 05:36:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:00:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
First of all I think you should concede that the exercise you're asking
us to do cannot be done as easily as you did yours.
I don't concede that. I've read
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:42:58PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well I don't want to be convinced or not convinced, you misunderstood
why I'm asking that. I'm asking because I want to evaluate if rolling is
the sole answer we can bring to these people.
Oh no, not at all, I apologize if that
* Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [110501 22:36]:
The problem with the moving target is that it means that d-i betas begin
to be broken as time goes on after their release, starting with the
smallest boot images and moving up to the netinst images.
We could e.g. create an copy of testing at the
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (h...@ftwca.de) [110502 09:12]:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
- PPA should focus on:
* co-installability when endurable;
* documented and working rollback to unstable (IOW downgrading a
package to unstable when co-installability
Andreas Barth wrote:
We could e.g. create an copy of testing at the time, so that the betas
will work for 3 weeks or so. Perhaps we should take an hour or so
during debconf and see where we arrive?
There is a spec for doing so, which aj mostly developed, at
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net writes:
[ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a share
of DDs interested in rolling similar to the share of DDs interested in
stable releases. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to know where we
stand regarding this. ]
I'm very
On 04/30/2011 04:32 PM, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
FWIW I think that rolling or CUT miss the point entirely. As a
Debian user I use stable on my servers (with a few backports for the 3-4
things I need bleeding edge for). For my desktop I use unstable, and
when that breaks (which is *very* rare,
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 01:32:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
FWIW I think that rolling or CUT miss the point entirely. As a
Debian user I use stable on my servers (with a few backports for the 3-4
things I need bleeding edge for). For my desktop I use unstable, and
when that breaks (which
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
No what we want is probably to be attractive to developers, while
keeping our standards about the stable release, which is what really
matters. And to do that, well, what we need is to make working for
On Du, 01 mai 11, 08:38:55, Mike Hommey wrote:
So while I do agree with the rest of your message, I do see a need to
make testing more attractive so that we have a solid user base actually
testing what we are going to release, and stop saying to people that
they shouldn't be using testing
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:24:41PM -0700, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
On 04/30/2011 04:32 PM, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
FWIW I think that rolling or CUT miss the point entirely. As a
Debian user I use stable on my servers (with a few backports for the 3-4
things I need bleeding edge for). For my
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 08:38:55AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 01:32:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
FWIW I think that rolling or CUT miss the point entirely. As a
Debian user I use stable on my servers (with a few backports for the 3-4
things I need bleeding edge
On Du, 01 mai 11, 09:57:50, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I think we'd like people running unstable stick with testing when we
freeze, that makes sense, yes.
This doesn't make sense to me, why would I want to downgrade to
testing during the freeze? Besides, during the freeze testing and
unstable
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:22:51AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Du, 01 mai 11, 09:57:50, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I think we'd like people running unstable stick with testing when we
freeze, that makes sense, yes.
This doesn't make sense to me, why would I want to downgrade to
testing
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 08:41]:
Fixing RC bugs in testing and getting new upstream versions that are
ready in testing is not a burden for developers, it's what we're
supposed to do to ensure we can release as quickly as possible.
Who is the we you are speaking about
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:48:24 +0200, Andreas Barth
a...@not.so.argh.org wrote:
Actually, it worked quite well for both volatile and backports to
start as a non-official service.
Agreed for backports, violently disagreed for volatile. Volatile has
been a source of demotivation and frustration, at
* Marc Haber (mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de) [110501 14:16]:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:48:24 +0200, Andreas Barth
a...@not.so.argh.org wrote:
Actually, it worked quite well for both volatile and backports to
start as a non-official service.
Agreed for backports, violently disagreed for
* Pierre Habouzit (madco...@madism.org) [110501 01:32]:
- link that PPA stuff to the main repository in a way that merging
PPA into unstable is just a matter of one single command, or a few.
- make it easy for users to subscribe to PPAs, meaning you have to
have some kind of
On Sun, 01 May 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 08:41]:
Fixing RC bugs in testing and getting new upstream versions that are
ready in testing is not a burden for developers, it's what we're
supposed to do to ensure we can release as quickly as
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 02:06:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I think that we should not do any trade off on the quality of
rolling/testing/the-antechamber-of-stable, but instead raise the quality
of unstable so that (which isn't *that* bad, unstable is rarely badly
broken, and I know lots
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 01:32:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Oh yes, you really want to attract new contributors ? build debhub.com
(as in github) and force everyone to package stuff in there. Let people
propose patches, packaging new upstreams and so forth using merge
requests (as in
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 06:50:04PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Look at the welcoming new contributors GR; what did that actually
accomplish? There isn't anything new to show for it, there are no new
means to bring contributors in, and the number of new people hasn't
really changed.
I doubt
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 06:05:35PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
In the Squeeze release we have done better than before by calling for
explicit upgrade testing (kudos to the Release Team!), but a specific
plan of alpha/beta/... might bring even more testing, especially if the
media help us out
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:11:49PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
A complete aside: I have yet to see DEPs being anything but a structured
way to bikeshed. However, if you wish to go down this route, feel free.
This does bring me full circle back to the start of my mail - if you
want to push
* Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [110501 16:12]:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 06:05:35PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
In the Squeeze release we have done better than before by calling for
explicit upgrade testing (kudos to the Release Team!), but a specific
plan of alpha/beta/... might bring
Ludovico Cavedon cave...@debian.org wrote:
On 04/30/2011 04:32 PM, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
FWIW I think that rolling or CUT miss the point entirely. As a
Debian user I use stable on my servers (with a few backports for the
3-4
things I need bleeding edge for). For my desktop I use unstable, and
* Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org [2011-05-01 15:40]:
On Sun, 01 May 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 08:41]:
Fixing RC bugs in testing and getting new upstream versions that are
ready in testing is not a burden for developers, it's what we're
Hello,
Marc laid that wonderful bait in this thread to which then Stefano
bite, and then the thread ended after some clarification by Marc
where IMHO there was no clarification needed [not shown].
On 04/30/2011 12:28 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:28:17AM +0200, Marc
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:39:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110501 08:41]:
Fixing RC bugs in testing and getting new upstream versions that are
ready in testing is not a burden for developers, it's what
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
| I've been dreaming of a similar integration in Debian since the days
| where I was pushing for the Vcs-* headers, but as you explained later on
| in your mail the problem is: how can we converge on a specific Vcs in
| Debian? Or, even easier, how can we converge on the
On 01/05/11 at 18:38 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
You're saying:
Problem:
I acknowledge that people are not interested in stable releases
enough and that the RT has to compensate all the time.
Those two statements are true:
- A subset of DDs care about doing stable releases. The
Hi,
On Sun May 01, 2011 at 20:02:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
2. determine who is in support of each action plan, through a GR or a
poll.
I don't think we need a GR for that. Those who are interested in rolling
releases could show that they are interested and just doing so (like
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 08:02:51PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 01/05/11 at 18:38 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
You're saying:
Problem:
I acknowledge that people are not interested in stable releases
enough and that the RT has to compensate all the time.
Those two
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:17:10PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
JFYI, Sean and Raphael have taken DEP number 10
They have? I haven't seen mail to debian-project about this, which is what
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep0/ requires?
(The chance of a collision here is quite small of course,
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 09:43:51PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 08:55:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
(1) you'll split the userbase, some of the users will use rolling
instead of testing, and during the freeze we're very interested
about our users to
On 01/05/11 at 20:51 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
On Sun May 01, 2011 at 20:02:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
2. determine who is in support of each action plan, through a GR or a
poll.
I don't think we need a GR for that. Those who are interested in rolling
releases could
On 01/05/11 at 20:55 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 08:02:51PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 01/05/11 at 18:38 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
You're saying:
Problem:
I acknowledge that people are not interested in stable releases
enough and that
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
FWIW I think that rolling or CUT miss the point entirely. As a
Debian user I use stable on my servers (with a few backports for the 3-4
things I need bleeding edge for). For my desktop I use unstable, and
when that breaks (which is *very* rare, really) I go to snapshots
On 05/01/2011 08:02 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
There are compromise solutions, too:
[Plan C -- freeze rolling before forking frozen:]
- do plan A.
- But When the release team decides to do a general freeze,
rolling is frozen for a few months to maximize user testing and
developer
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:01:20PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
FWIW I think that rolling or CUT miss the point entirely. As a
Debian user I use stable on my servers (with a few backports for the 3-4
things I need bleeding edge for). For my desktop I use unstable, and
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 09:35:07PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a
share of DDs interested in rolling similar to the share of DDs
interested in stable releases. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to
know where we stand regarding
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Who are they? Unlike this constant handwaving, I've shared my experience
^^^
If you feel that my contributions and experience in Debian consist of
constant handwaving, feel free to ignore and dismiss me.
--
see shy jo
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:26:57PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Who are they? Unlike this constant handwaving, I've shared my experience
^^^
If you feel that my contributions and experience in Debian consist of
constant
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Out of curiosity, have the d-i discussed with the release team the
possibility of presenting them as alpha/beta/... of Debian as a whole?
It seemed better when I was leading d-i to just do it, rather than
talk about doing it.
(Which AFAICS also holds true of this
On 01/05/11 at 22:17 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 09:35:07PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a
share of DDs interested in rolling similar to the share of DDs
interested in stable releases. Unfortunately,
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:46PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Those are real users from real life. I'm not saying we-re
representative of a majority of Debian Users, but unlike all the
handwaived users we've read about in this thread, those are real.
First of all I think you should concede
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2011-05-01 15:43 +0200]:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 02:06:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I think that we should not do any trade off on the quality of
rolling/testing/the-antechamber-of-stable, but instead raise the quality
of unstable so that (which isn't *that* bad,
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:36:07PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 01/05/11 at 22:17 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 09:35:07PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
[ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a
share of DDs interested in rolling similar
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:41:07PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:46PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Those are real users from real life. I'm not saying we-re
representative of a majority of Debian Users, but unlike all the
handwaived users we've read about
On Sun, 01 May 2011, Carsten Hey wrote:
Testing, OTOH, is really unique in that respect, with its mixture of
fresh software and quarantine period.
A 'frozen' requiring most updates to go through *-proposed-updates would
make this quarantine period a lot less useful, and it would make
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:07:48PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011, Carsten Hey wrote:
Testing, OTOH, is really unique in that respect, with its mixture of
fresh software and quarantine period.
A 'frozen' requiring most updates to go through *-proposed-updates would
On 2011-05-01, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
- I've talked at several trade shows and conferences with developers of
rolling distros based on Debian (in particular: Aptosid/Sidux and
Linux Mint Debian Edition). They usually claim they have built those
distros because Debian
Hi Ste(ve|fano),
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:02:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:17:10PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
JFYI, Sean and Raphael have taken DEP number 10
They have? I haven't seen mail to debian-project about this, which is what
Hi Stefano,
On Mon, 2 May 2011 06:41:07 AM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:46PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Those are real users from real life. I'm not saying we-re
representative of a majority of Debian Users, but unlike all the
handwaived users we've read about
On 01/05/11 at 22:48 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:36:07PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It's clear that we are not going to stop doing stable releases anytime
soon. However, there seem to be some interest in the rolling release
concept. The question is: can we
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:39:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 01/05/11 at 22:48 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:36:07PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
It's clear that we are not going to stop doing stable releases anytime
soon. However, there seem to be some
Hi
On Sunday 01 May 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
- I've talked at several trade shows and conferences with developers of
rolling distros based on Debian (in particular: Aptosid/Sidux and
Linux Mint Debian Edition). They usually
1 - 100 of 338 matches
Mail list logo
