Hi Greg, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> skribis:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 5:32 AM Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: [...] >> I think there should be a team of ~4 volunteers who can commit to focus >> on it for, say, 2–5 months¹ (the shorter the better, but we have to >> prepare for extra time). > > That seems like a lengthy time to roll some release artifacts. Is the > remaining effort to fix failing builds? Fixing failing builds, but more importantly fixing issues with the installer, which receives little attention during the rest of the time. [...] > Whether the remainder of the packages are available or even buildable > at release seems inconsequential, since without release branches or > backported security fixes all Guix systems should be kept up-to-date. > We do need "quality control", but on a continuing basis rather than at > particular points in time. I agree. In practice, we need to make sure that things like desktop environments that the installer lets you choose and actually buildable/installable/working in that release. But yes, we should keep it the scope of the release work as reduced as possible like you say. If we can get it done in a few weeks rather than the 2–5 months I talk about, that’s great. What matters anyhow is to have a small group of people with a clear list of things to address before they tag the release and upload the artifacts. > I believe other distributions the size of Guix have some version of > package "ownership" (responsibility), which both reduces duplicated > effort and when lacking informs deprecation and removal of the > package. Guix teams is coarse, both in subsetting packages and > contributors. Guix chose to not have package ownership. Package ownerships has pros and cons, and historically we chose to go for collective ownership. But anyway, I think this is mostly a separate topic. Thanks! Ludo’.
