Bug#850887: [TIMELY for TC members] Interim Ballot Proposal: #850887 binutils mips

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le mercredi, 11 janvier 2017, 22.38:33 h CET Sam Hartman a écrit :
> I heard back from doko today.  We can expect a reply tomorrow.  We also
> talked briefly about the issue.

Good. Thanks for this work.

> Realistically, i cannot imagine the TC coming to any final decision on
> something like this in under three weeks.  That timeline seems fairly
> aggressive actually.

Right. It implies that every involved party (Lisandro, the Release Team, 
Matthias, and the TC members) can provide a high bandwidth to that issue.

> However, I think the TC could act much more quickly in an interim
> capacity.

Yes.

> I personally believe that having packages building is a better interim
> state than the status quo.  There are risks to an interim measure.  We
> could have packages in the archive that build but fail to function
> correctly.

Ack.

> Depending on what we do long term, we could end up replacing
> packges currently in Stretch with packages we can no longer rebuild.

The worst case is needing to rebootstrap mips' stretch either from jessie, or 
in a cross-bootstrap situation, right ?

> I personally think that when I weigh those risks against my estimate of
> their probability, I think it makes sense to adopt an interim measure.

I agree.

> Roughly I propose to override the maintainer and permit an NMU to be
> made for this issue.

It would be much preferable if Matthias would accept that patch, or revert to 
the previous working version. But if it needs an NMU, so be it.

(Mid-term, I want to understand how it can make sense to change Debian's
 binutils' tracked branch (2.27→2.28) three days before the transition
 freeze.
)

> The decision stands until the maintainer fixes the bug or Stretch
> releases, or another resolution is passed (presumably with a more
> permanent decision).

Absolutely.

> Yes, that means that the maintainer could reintroduce the bug and revert
> the NMU immediately on the release of Stretch.

Absolutely. I wouldn't support a resolution enforcing that NMU in unstable 
forever. New release cycles are our reset button, really.

> I propose to be very agressive in calling for a vote on the following
> ballot.
> I plan to call for a vote in 24 hours if I get support from at least one
> TC member and no objections from within the TC or release team.

Let this mail be my support !

> Also, within that time, we should hear from doko.  His input may change
> my thinking even for an interim measure.

Yes, absolutely. There was only one mail from Matthias on the #844227, only to 
NAK the NMU, on an RC bug opened since November, his input is long overdue!

> 
> In #850887, the Debian Technical Committee was asked to choose a
> solution for #840227, a bug that prevents a significant number of
> packages from building on the mips architecture.  Given the upcoming
> Stretch freeze, this issue is urgent.
> 
> As an interim measure, using its powers under section 6.1.4 of the
> Debian Constitution, the Technical Committee overrules Matthias
> Klose's decision to revert the NMU of binutils fixing #840227.  The
> committee requests Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer to make a new
> NMU fixing #840227.
> 
> The committee requests the release team to support the interim nature of
> this solution and if a permanent solution is adopted before the release of
> Stretch, to consider including that solution in Stretch even if the freeze
> criteria would not normally permit such consideration.
> 
> In addition, the committee requests the stable release managers for Stretch
> to consider including the eventual upstream solution for this issue into a
> stretch update.
> 
> This interim decision stands until the release of Stretch, until it is
> replaced by resolution, or until the binutils maintainer fixes #840227 in
> some other manner.
> 
> 
> Choice 1:  Approve the Resolution (3:1 majority)
> Choice 2: Reject this Interim Measure
> Choice 3: Further Discussion
> 

I agree with the ballot including Ian's suggestion, and think we should start 
the vote as early as this week-end.

Cheers,
OdyX

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#850887: [TIMELY for TC members] Interim Ballot Proposal: #850887 binutils mips

[Sam Hartman]

> "Ian" == Ian Jackson  writes:


Ian> You should explicitly state whether you want this NMU to be
Ian> DELAYED.

Good point.
I think we don't want a delay.
Updated the ballot in git.

Bug#850887: [TIMELY for TC members] Interim Ballot Proposal: #850887 binutils mips

[Ian Jackson]

Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#850887: [TIMELY for TC members] Interim Ballot 
Proposal: #850887 binutils mips"):
> [stuff]

Thanks for pushing this issue, for your IMO correct approach to the
process, and for your clear and straightforward communication.

> 
> In #850887, the Debian Technical Committee was asked to choose a
> solution for #840227, a bug that prevents a significant number of
> packages from building on the mips architecture.  Given the upcoming
> Stretch freeze, this issue is urgent.
> 
> As an interim measure, using its powers under section 6.1.4 of the
> Debian Constitution, the Technical Committee overrules Matthias
> Klose's decision to revert the NMU of binutils fixing #840227.  The
> committee requests Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer to make a new
> NMU fixing #840227.

You should explicitly state whether you want this NMU to be DELAYED.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Bug#850887: [TIMELY for TC members] Interim Ballot Proposal: #850887 binutils mips

[Sam Hartman]

I heard back from doko today.  We can expect a reply tomorrow.  We also
talked briefly about the issue.

Realistically, i cannot imagine the TC coming to any final decision on
something like this in under three weeks.  That timeline seems fairly
aggressive actually.

However, I think the TC could act much more quickly in an interim
capacity.
I personally believe that having packages building is a better interim
state than the status quo.  There are risks to an interim measure.  We
could have packages in the archive that build but fail to function
correctly.  Depending on what we do long term, we could end up replacing
packges currently in Stretch with packages we can no longer rebuild.
I personally think that when I weigh those risks against my estimate of
their probability, I think it makes sense to adopt an interim measure.

Roughly I propose to override the maintainer and permit an NMU to be
made for this issue.
The decision stands until the maintainer fixes the bug or Stretch
releases, or another resolution is passed (presumably with a more
permanent decision).
Yes, that means that the maintainer could reintroduce the bug and revert
the NMU immediately on the release of Stretch.
First, I hope even the TC can act quickly enough that we're not using an
interim measure then.
Second, I think that's actually appropriate.  The justification for an
interim measure is the impending freeze.  Once we get Stretch out, this
issue is still important, TC involvement may be necessary, but there is
no reason to cut process corners.


I propose to be very agressive in calling for a vote on the following
ballot.
I plan to call for a vote in 24 hours if I get support from at least one
TC member and no objections from within the TC or release team.
In that assumption is a belief that I'll have a chance to review the
patch and the upstream bugzilla discussion prior to calling for a vote.
If I don't have time to do that, I will delay, although I would not
object to someone else who has done the review calling for a vote.
Also, within that time, we should hear from doko.  His input may change
my thinking even for an interim measure.

I want to stress this is only my interim thinking.
This is in the TC git; feel free to fix/amend as necessary.


In #850887, the Debian Technical Committee was asked to choose a
solution for #840227, a bug that prevents a significant number of
packages from building on the mips architecture.  Given the upcoming
Stretch freeze, this issue is urgent.

As an interim measure, using its powers under section 6.1.4 of the
Debian Constitution, the Technical Committee overrules Matthias
Klose's decision to revert the NMU of binutils fixing #840227.  The
committee requests Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer to make a new
NMU fixing #840227.

The committee requests the release team to support the interim nature of this 
solution and if a permanent solution is adopted before the release of Stretch, 
to consider including that solution in Stretch even if the freeze criteria 
would not normally permit such consideration.

In addition, the committee requests the stable release managers for Stretch to 
consider including the eventual upstream solution for this issue into a stretch 
update.

This interim decision stands until the release of Stretch, until it is replaced 
by resolution, or until the binutils maintainer fixes #840227 in some other 
manner.



Choice 1:  Approve the Resolution (3:1 majority)

Choice 2: Reject this Interim Measure

Choice 3: Further Discussion



I've included a separate reject and FD choice to distinguish "we need
more info for deciding on an interm solution even" from "we have enough
info and this approach is bad."


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature