[Stefano Zacchiroli] > Fair enough. IMO you've done quite a lot of communication on the matter > (at least to us developers) and I've personally been testing > CONCURRENCY=makefile in response to your repeated call for testers. At > this point, I doubt you can get significantly more testers without > changing the default concurrency level. All in all, it seems to be just > a matter of *when* doing that change to gather more feedback.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should do a poll to collect information on how testers experience their boot with CONCURRENCY=makefile, to make it easier to switch with some confidence that it would work for most users. :) > I understand that you've considered doing it now and that you've decided > not to (probably in accordance with the release team), which is fairly > understandable. It is just a pity to give up the chance to actually > understand how far are we from correct and complete dependency > declarations. Oh well, I guess it's just life. Well, it has not really been discussed with the release team, and the decision depend a lot of when Squeeze freezes, so it is hard to know what to decide. :) Perhaps we should switch the default in unstable to CONCURRENCY=makefile for a while, and if it causes a lot of problems we can switch it back to sequential boot. At the moment I believe we need to increase the amount of testing a lot to get the remaining bugs located and fixed, and that is hard to do without actually doing the switch. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flhbmicof3....@login2.uio.no