On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:47:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:37:05AM +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote: > > ps : concerning upload to debian, i prefer to be sure of the quality of > > the 1st version of mldonkey to enter unstable, because, first user will > > judge mldonkey on this first package ( if i fail, i will lose all > > credibility for this package ). > > Notice that : > > 1) Once you upload the packages, you will have to wait a few weeks for > it to be read by James Troup or another ftp master and then added to > the override file, if there is no problems or such. > > 2) If it works and is lintian clean, what are you afraid with regard > to quality ? Anyway, you can always do some package checking during > the time the package is sitting in NEW, and upload a fixed version > once it has been accepted or even before that. >
MLDonkey quality is not very stable. For example, 2.4.2 seems to crash from time to time ( i have just restarted one, because it just has crashed ). So if the first version people try crash after one or two hour, guess how many people will stay on this software... I just want to find some release which are enough stable to be a good first experience... I intend to keep a small archive with really unstable mldonkey package ( CVS in other word ), to be tested by a few, in order to see if it is enough stable. > 3) The more people review the package, the more testing it will get, > and it may well give you an experience with the BTS you probably will > be needing for your NM application anyway. > That is another point. To my mind, there is some obvious bug in my script and in mldonkey whichcan be discover by a few. If the few which test it can't find any obvious bug, there is a chance to be tested by a more widely range of people who can report me bug which are less obvious. Taken the example of crash. I know 2.4.2 crash every 12/24 h. So i will wait to have a more stable version ( 2.4.3 was out on wednesday, i will probably packaged 2.4.4 next monday ). I run the test for a few people ( including me, wait for user experience on [EMAIL PROTECTED], see if it is a good release. The bug is obvious ( i have not yet track it, but i know there is a bug ). If i release it today, about 2000 people will fill bug against mldonkey-server saying that it crashes often. I will send to upstream all the bug, and i will probably pass all my time to close and forward bug. Imagine, 2.4.4 is really more stable. No one will report the bug of crashing, and they can focused on other functionnality ( debconf should permit to configure this and this option... ). I think it will be more accurate. I am not "le lievre de Jean de la Fontaine", i am more a copy of "la tortue". I prefer to be slow but it is in order to be efficient. Off course, i am young and i have no real experience of software developping, so if is say to many dumb assumption, i hope you will correct me ;-> In fact, my first experience with mtink was a little disaster, i packaged it very fast, do what i think was good, my sponsor upload it believing in me ( i thanks him because i was very courageaous ), and then the problem come : many bug ( RC ). I remember that no other platform ( ppc, sh, mips, mipsel... ) can achieve to build it. That was my fault, i forget to check all the dependcy ( all the error a beginner made in fact ). I don't want mldonkey to be the same mess. My first serious bug was reported by Mr Zachirrioli ( excuse if i mispell the name ) : i depend on ocaml-native-compiler... Which is not available on all platform. It will be corrected soon, but it is very really a dumb thing ( i should have read more precisely the ocaml packaging policy ). Thanks for all your advice, if some of you want to be warned when i release the next package ( monday or tuesday i think ) send me an email, i will add you to my list. Kind regard Sylvain LE GALL
