Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:43:26 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: >On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:29:13 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 08:26:46 +0100, Christoph Biedl >> wrote: >> >Finally, there's a thing called "trust": I trust the Release

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 11:23:24AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > FTAOD: I thank the release team for their tireless work on making each > Debian release better than the last. We keep on adding more and more > software and making things harder and harder to stabilise and release, > and I 100%

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:29:13 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 08:26:46 +0100, Christoph Biedl > wrote: > >Finally, there's a thing called "trust": I trust the Release Team does > >this solely in order to keep the freeze time as short as possible, >

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber writes: > I would feel a lot less uncomfortable if the teams who are using > automated tools to auto-file RC bugs for third-rate policy violations > which will auto-remove a (99,99% of the cases) perfectly working > package from testing in a time where a

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Samuel Thibault, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 12:25:33 +0100, wrote: > Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 12:16:46 +0100, wrote: > > But we currently treat "does not build at all" or "eats my entire > > ~ on installation" the same way like "leaves an idle directory in > > /var/lib after an > >

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 12:16:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Yes. But we currently treat "does not build at all" or "eats my entire > ~ on installation" the same way like "leaves an idle directory in > /var/lib after an > install-purge-reinstall-old-version-update-remove-reinstall-purge > cycle".

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

]] Marc Haber > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:24:20 +0100, Wouter Verhelst > wrote: > > >If the release team is willing to consider exceptions when > >the automated machinery was jumping the gun a little, however, then > >okay, I think it might be a good idea to try this out. > >

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 12:16:46 +0100, wrote: > But we currently treat "does not build at all" or "eats my entire > ~ on installation" the same way like "leaves an idle directory in > /var/lib after an > install-purge-reinstall-old-version-update-remove-reinstall-purge > cycle". Don't

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber whined: >On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:37:00 +, Niels Thykier > >>""" >>The release managers may make exceptions to these guidelines as they see >>fit. *Such exceptions are not precedents and you should not assume that >>your package has a similar exception*. Please

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:11:06 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: >Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:48:06 +0100, wrote: >> I'd rather have a badly maintained package than none. > >That's probably the real point where people differ. > >To me, releasing in Debian means some given

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:48:06 +0100, wrote: > I'd rather have a badly maintained package than none. That's probably the real point where people differ. To me, releasing in Debian means some given level of quality. Samuel

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 11:55:13AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > This means that we didn't to this with squeeze, wheezy and jessie. we did this for jessie. the fact that you were not paying attention doesnt change reality. -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:56:09 +0100, wrote: > On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:46:36 +0100, Samuel Thibault > wrote: > >Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:37:54 +0100, wrote: > >> On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:51:36 +, Steve McIntyre > >> wrote: > >>

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:55:13 +0100, wrote: > On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:45:23 +0100, Samuel Thibault > wrote: > >Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:37:13 +0100, wrote: > >> On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:06:33 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > >> >I'm even willing to

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:46:07 +, "Adam D. Barratt" wrote: >On Sun, 2016-11-13 at 11:28 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> This is a quite nice opportunity to say something like "you haven't >> been nice enough to us in the past or you have dared to speak up when >> you

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:46:36 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: >Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:37:54 +0100, wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:51:36 +, Steve McIntyre >> wrote: >> >Releasing Debian is work for all of us, not just the Release Team... >>

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:45:23 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: >Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:37:13 +0100, wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:06:33 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: >> >I'm even willing to justify my opinion: Keeping testing in a state >> >that can be

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 19:45:02 +0100, gregor herrmann > wrote: >> I don't quite understand where all this fuzz about auto-removals >> suddenly comes from. The auto-removals exist since Septemer 2013 [0] >> and they were also in place for the jessie freeze [1], with

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:07:18 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: >Marc Haber wrote... > >> This is exactly the problem I have with the current policy: I fail to >> see why this measure will shorten the freeze. > >I don't. But I'd say we'll just watch what's going to

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:24:20 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >What if I did notice, but fixing the bug takes longer than the 15 days >(and I agree that we shouldn't release with that bug, so I agree that >the severity is correct)? > >15 days is a pretty short time for

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 12:53:42 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >And if the problem is complicated, they have other >options: request for help on debian-devel@ and debian-mentors@, >request an exception from the release team to mark a bug as >stretch-ignore in specific cases,

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:37:54 +0100, wrote: > On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:51:36 +, Steve McIntyre > wrote: > >Releasing Debian is work for all of us, not just the Release Team... > > So you are actually suggesting that people who are neither on the > release team nor

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 2016-11-13 at 11:28 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:37:00 +, Niels Thykier > >""" > >The release managers may make exceptions to these guidelines as they see > >fit. *Such exceptions are not precedents and you should not assume that > >your package

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:37:13 +0100, wrote: > On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:06:33 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > >I'm even willing to justify my opinion: Keeping testing in a state > >that can be released seems to be the only way in which we can make a > >release in a reasonable

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:06:33 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: >I'm even willing to justify my opinion: Keeping testing in a state >that can be released seems to be the only way in which we can make a >release in a reasonable time frame. We've tried several other >approaches, which haven't

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:51:36 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >Releasing Debian is work for all of us, not just the Release Team... So you are actually suggesting that people who are neither on the release team nor maintaining a key package are not working? Greetings Marc --

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber, on Sun 13 Nov 2016 11:30:18 +0100, wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:01:13 +, Ian Jackson > wrote: > >If it turns out to be a more common problem and there are many > >packages affected, then this would mean delays to the stretch release, > >indeed.

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 19:45:02 +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: >I don't quite understand where all this fuzz about auto-removals >suddenly comes from. The auto-removals exist since Septemer 2013 [0] >and they were also in place for the jessie freeze [1], with the small >difference

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:01:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote: >If it turns out to be a more common problem and there are many >packages affected, then this would mean delays to the stretch release, >indeed. One of my issues is that this new policy means a switch from

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:37:00 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > * As James noted; sending an update to the bug will reset the timer. Did I miss the documentation about this? It does not seem to be in the freeze policy. > * Also, if you do not have time for a given bug, please

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 08:36:21 +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: >Wouter Verhelst writes: >> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:05:59AM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >>> 30 days within the deep freeze should be plenty enough - and as I >>> said: if the problem is more

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:05:59 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >Yes, especially since autoremovals are not instantaneous, but for >packages with rdeps (and the rdeps themselves) will happen at >least 30 days in the future - and you will get an email in time. >(For packages without

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

Marc Haber wrote... > This is exactly the problem I have with the current policy: I fail to > see why this measure will shorten the freeze. I don't. But I'd say we'll just watch what's going to happen and resume this discussion once stretch is released. Chri- "somewhen December 2017" stoph

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 10:17:57 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >And yes, we will give exceptions on a case by case basis, as we have always >done. This will create a third class of packages: The ones that are not important enough to get an exception, which will in turn

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 08:26:46 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: >Finally, there's a thing called "trust": I trust the Release Team does >this solely in order to keep the freeze time as short as possible, >everybody hates that time anyway. This trust was created by the

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

On 10/11/16 08:26, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote... > >> I think what is really worrying people is the fear that they might >> miss something, for good reasons, and then find that their work that >> they care about is thrown out of stretch. >> >> It is difficult to address this fear

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Wouter Verhelst writes: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:05:59AM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >> 30 days within the deep freeze should be plenty enough - and as I >> said: if the problem is more complicated, just talk to the release >> team _while the package is still in

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Wouter Verhelst: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:05:59AM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: >> 30 days within the deep freeze should be plenty enough - and as I >> said: if the problem is more complicated, just talk to the release >> team _while the package is still in testing_. > > Let's say I'm on

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

Ian Jackson wrote... > I think what is really worrying people is the fear that they might > miss something, for good reasons, and then find that their work that > they care about is thrown out of stretch. > > It is difficult to address this fear with logical arguments intended > to demonstrate

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:24:20AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:05:59AM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > > 30 days within the deep freeze should be plenty enough - and as I > > said: if the problem is more complicated, just talk to the release > > team _while the

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 22:55 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Is anyone tracking what packages are installed from backports on > Debian machines, and the CVEs in them? backports is unsupported by the security team, so DSA & backports users rely on service maintainers and backporters to do the right

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule [and 1 more messages]

gregor herrmann writes ("Re: More 5 november in the release schedule"): > I don't quite understand where all this fuzz about auto-removals > suddenly comes from. The auto-removals exist since Septemer 2013 [0] > and they were also in place for the jessie freeze [1], with the

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:05:59AM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > 30 days within the deep freeze should be plenty enough - and as I > said: if the problem is more complicated, just talk to the release > team _while the package is still in testing_. Let's say I'm on holiday (or I get hit by a

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 11:16:36AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > Right. We want auto-removals to be useful for the release process, so that > > we > > don't end up with a thousand of RC bugs in testing when we freeze, most of > >

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 14:01:13 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > If it turns out to be a more common problem and there are many > packages affected, then this would mean delays to the stretch release, > indeed. But it would also highlight where the real problem is - ie, > not with the maintenance of the

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marvin Renich writes ("Re: More 5 november in the release schedule"): > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <po...@debian.org> [161108 16:01]: > > It is true for other removals from testing, which can happen in two > > different ways: > > > > - The package

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [161108 16:01]: > It is true for other removals from testing, which can happen in two different > ways: > > - The package was removed from unstable > - The package was hinted for testing removal by the release team > > Since britney doesn't enforce

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 at 17:03:45 +1100, Brian May wrote: > Another situation: You are not listed as the maintainer of the package > you really care about, and the real maintainer ignores the autoremoval > notifications. Other people looking at the package bug reports (there > may be none) may not

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On 09/11/16 04:16, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> Right. We want auto-removals to be useful for the release process, so that we >> don't end up with a thousand of RC bugs in testing when we freeze, most of >> them >> on packages that nobody

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Scott Kitterman writes: > I seem to get email when a package I maintain is marked for autoremoval > (regardless of whether it is an issue with my package or an rdepend). That > and it showing up on your DDPO Packages overview ought to be enough to be > forewarned, I

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Right. We want auto-removals to be useful for the release process, so that we > don't end up with a thousand of RC bugs in testing when we freeze, most of > them > on packages that nobody cares about, not even their maintainers. > >

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On 11/08/2016 08:47 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:31:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 08, 2016 06:19:36 PM Brian May wrote: >>> Christian Seiler writes: Why? Any package currently in testing still has time to enter

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On 11/08/2016 08:31 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, November 08, 2016 06:19:36 PM Brian May wrote: >> Christian Seiler writes: >>> Why? Any package currently in testing still has time to enter >>> (until roughly end of this year), so it's not like there is no >>>

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Tuesday, November 08, 2016 06:19:36 PM Brian May wrote: > Christian Seiler writes: > > Why? Any package currently in testing still has time to enter > > (until roughly end of this year), so it's not like there is no > > heads-up for people. And RC bugs don't lead to

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Brian May wrote: > The problem is if the maintainer is not responding to RC bug reports, > and you don't realize a package you depend on has RC bugs. This happened > several times to me during the last freeze. Assuming you have your package and its dependencies

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Christian Seiler writes: > Why? Any package currently in testing still has time to enter > (until roughly end of this year), so it's not like there is no > heads-up for people. And RC bugs don't lead to immediate > removal from testing, you still have quite a bit of time

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Christoph Biedl, on Mon 07 Nov 2016 19:02:17 +0100, wrote: > If I understood some remarks in IRC correctly: Filing an RC bug after > hard freeze may lead to immediate and thus irrevocable removal from > stretch[citation needed]. The removal is not immediate, you have time to downgrade the

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Quoting Christoph Biedl (2016-11-07 19:02:17) > If I understood some remarks in IRC correctly: Filing an RC bug after > hard freeze may lead to immediate and thus irrevocable removal from > stretch[citation needed]. If this was true, a malicious attacker could > abuse this to kick arbitrary

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Ian Jackson wrote... > There's still big spikes in work for our core teams around deadlines, > so it's still best if people sort their stuff out earlier, but the new > arrangements are a big improvement IMO. ACK, and also looking at the way removals were handled in the past months (Like long

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Christian Seiler writes ("Re: More 5 november in the release schedule"): > If a stable release is going to happen, there needs to be some > kind of process so that one may converge on a stable result. > What happens if you only have a single deadline to freeze > ful

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On 11/06/2016 11:59 AM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 09:38:00 +, Niels Thykier > wrote: >> Marc Haber: >>> On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:46:16 +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg >>> wrote: [2017-Jan-05] Soft freeze (no new packages, no re-entry,

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber wrote: >On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 09:38:00 +, Niels Thykier >wrote: >>Marc Haber: >>> On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:46:16 +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg >>> wrote: [2017-Jan-05] Soft freeze (no new packages, no re-entry, 10-day

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 11:59:34AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > That is really really bad. I really hoped back in 2015 that you were > joking when you announced that. It's really, really good. I was really glad that it isn't a joke. I'm even willing to justify my opinion: Keeping testing in a

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 09:38:00 +, Niels Thykier wrote: >Marc Haber: >> On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:46:16 +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg >> wrote: >>> [2017-Jan-05] Soft freeze (no new packages, no re-entry, 10-day >>> migrations) >> >> Does this

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:46:16 +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > [2017-Jan-05] Soft freeze (no new packages, no re-entry, 10-day > migrations) Does this really mean "once you're out, you'll stay out"? Greetings Marc -- --

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

Marc Haber: > On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:46:16 +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg > wrote: >> [2017-Jan-05] Soft freeze (no new packages, no re-entry, 10-day >> migrations) > > Does this really mean "once you're out, you'll stay out"? > > Greetings > Marc > Yes.

Re: More 5 november in the release schedule

On 11/05/2016 01:39 PM, Geert Stappers wrote: > Today is november fifth, day of the soft freeze in the Debian release > schedule. The soft freeze was moved to January 5th, today is the day of the transition freeze: " Key release dates [2016-Nov-05] Transition freeze [2016-Dec-05] Mandatory

More 5 november in the release schedule

Hi, (At the time of writing, it was 5 november in all timezones) Today is november fifth, day of the soft freeze in the Debian release schedule. I real like this fixed date. Having a clear goal is good! Riding with "Remember, remember, the fifth of november" is cool. Will Debian release