Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:50 AM, bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it is worth, I rather have 2.1 (beta or not) be included, for the simple fact that if it is not, then people keep submitting bugs for 2.0.10, and that doesn't do anybody any good. I do not think Debian ships 2.0.x I still find 2.1 too buggy for mass distribution. But then, I am a perfectionist. Fedora ships with beta3, and it seems to work for most people most of the time. - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
Giel van Schijndel wrote: Paul Wise schreef: On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 01:15 +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote: Any thoughts on this? Another beta might be a good idea, if it is done quickly. Also, when the final release is done, we can put a warzone2100 backport on backports.org for lenny users to upgrade to. Many people don't know about backports.org though, so that might become a support issue/FAQ for the warzone devs. To all devs (with or without commit access): I would really like this to be an active decision on our part, as opposed to a passive one, where we allow the decision to be made for us due to time passing. I.e. either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both. The only negative impact of this on us I can see is the support/FAQ issue mentioned above by Paul. I think another quick beta would be a good route if 2.1 is currently stable enough and runs well on Debian, otherwise there really isn't a good reason to include it in a stable release (and, yes, I know I'm stating the obvious ;) If there are still some rough edges in Debian 2.1, sticking 2.0.10 in lenny and relegating 2.1 to backports.org might be the better course of action. Tim ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 2:00, Giel van Schijndel wrote: Paul Wise schreef: On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 01:15 +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote: Any thoughts on this? Another beta might be a good idea, if it is done quickly. Also, when the final release is done, we can put a warzone2100 backport on backports.org for lenny users to upgrade to. Many people don't know about backports.org though, so that might become a support issue/FAQ for the warzone devs. To all devs (with or without commit access): I would really like this to be an active decision on our part, as opposed to a passive one, where we allow the decision to be made for us due to time passing. I.e. either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included I think that is the problem. If 2.1 is included in stable now, it will stay at the version included at freeze time, whatever that will be (if I remember the policy correctly). There is debian-volatile for fast-changing packages, though the descriptions only talks about things like virus scanners or spam filters, I don't know if games are accepted there, and I don't know how many people know about it (possibly even less than backports). So is whatever will be available at freeze time suitable to be included in a stable distribution for over a year? in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both. Well, if it can be updated (which I doubt, but I could be wrong), then I'm ok with including it, but if it cannot, then backports sounds like the better plan to me. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 9:28, Per Inge Mathisen wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:50 AM, bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it is worth, I rather have 2.1 (beta or not) be included, for the simple fact that if it is not, then people keep submitting bugs for 2.0.10, and that doesn't do anybody any good. I do not think Debian ships 2.0.x Yes. The question is not 2.0.10 or 2.1.beta4 but 2.1.beta4 or no Warzone in Debian stable. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2008 13:47:17 schrieb Christian Ohm: On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 2:00, Giel van Schijndel wrote: either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included I think that is the problem. If 2.1 is included in stable now, it will stay at the version included at freeze time, whatever that will be (if I remember the policy correctly). There is debian-volatile for fast-changing packages, though the descriptions only talks about things like virus scanners or spam filters, I don't know if games are accepted there, and I don't know how many people know about it (possibly even less than backports). So is whatever will be available at freeze time suitable to be included in a stable distribution for over a year? I assumed just the 2.1 part would be fixed, but 2.1.x bugfix releases would still go into future releases of Lenny and onto the update-servers? in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both. Well, if it can be updated (which I doubt, but I could be wrong), then I'm ok with including it, but if it cannot, then backports sounds like the better plan to me. Agreed. --DevUrandom signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
Christian Ohm schreef: On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 2:00, Giel van Schijndel wrote: Paul Wise schreef: On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 01:15 +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote: Any thoughts on this? Another beta might be a good idea, if it is done quickly. Also, when the final release is done, we can put a warzone2100 backport on backports.org for lenny users to upgrade to. Many people don't know about backports.org though, so that might become a support issue/FAQ for the warzone devs. To all devs (with or without commit access): I would really like this to be an active decision on our part, as opposed to a passive one, where we allow the decision to be made for us due to time passing. I.e. either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included I think that is the problem. If 2.1 is included in stable now, it will stay at the version included at freeze time, whatever that will be (if I remember the policy correctly). There is debian-volatile for fast-changing packages, though the descriptions only talks about things like virus scanners or spam filters, I don't know if games are accepted there, and I don't know how many people know about it (possibly even less than backports). So is whatever will be available at freeze time suitable to be included in a stable distribution for over a year? in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both. Well, if it can be updated (which I doubt, but I could be wrong), then I'm ok with including it, but if it cannot, then backports sounds like the better plan to me. AFAIK the package can *not* receive any updates once it enters stable. Apart from security fixes that is. But I'm pretty sure that, warzone being a game and all, isn't eligible for security updates. @Paul: can you confirm or deny this? -- Giel signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 01:15 +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote: Any thoughts on this? Another beta might be a good idea, if it is done quickly. Also, when the final release is done, we can put a warzone2100 backport on backports.org for lenny users to upgrade to. Many people don't know about backports.org though, so that might become a support issue/FAQ for the warzone devs. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
On 7/23/08, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Wise schreef: On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 01:15 +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote: Any thoughts on this? Another beta might be a good idea, if it is done quickly. Also, when the final release is done, we can put a warzone2100 backport on backports.org for lenny users to upgrade to. Many people don't know about backports.org though, so that might become a support issue/FAQ for the warzone devs. To all devs (with or without commit access): I would really like this to be an active decision on our part, as opposed to a passive one, where we allow the decision to be made for us due to time passing. I.e. either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both. The only negative impact of this on us I can see is the support/FAQ issue mentioned above by Paul. -- Giel For what it is worth, I rather have 2.1 (beta or not) be included, for the simple fact that if it is not, then people keep submitting bugs for 2.0.10, and that doesn't do anybody any good. I guess you could add/modify the version string on the main menu, to point people to backports.org, or stick it in the README file or whatever. I don't see that as big of a negative compared to getting old bug reports. I don't suppose it is possible to include them both? I say that since I know that 2.0.10 works on systems that 2.1 don't work on, be it because it is running on very low end hardware, and or having some kind of issues with one of the newer libs we use (QuesoGLC or fontconfig or...), but it might be nice to have that as a option. I know that 2.0.10 won't be maintained, but that version of warzone is better than having no warzone right? (Yes, I know that defeats what I wrote above, about the bug reports, but I digress! ;)) ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
