On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 01:14:13AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Debian can't afford to pay developers in general, and previous
> > proposals to pay specific developers were not well received.
>
> That was over a decade ago. The circumstances at the
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:15:32AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
It was said in this same thread that Freexian is already not the only
company paying people to do LTS work. See
Thanks, that's a good point because it brings up something that's
important to distinguish.
Freexian as a business
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:45:17PM +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > I disagree, in both cases.
> >
> > Debian should not pay anything through an organization that has race, gender
> > and nationality discrimination as its core purpose. Accepting code produced
> > this way is acceptable (as would b
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:58:47AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:02:57PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
> > wrote:
> > > I meant that we would say that stable is supported by the security team.
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 10:15, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:36:11AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:18 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
> >
> > > ... and that's what I meant when I said not much has changed: what was
> > > bad about about the idea of Debian paying
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:58:47AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:02:57PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
> > wrote:
> > > I meant that we would say that stable is supported by the security team.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:36:11AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:18 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> > ... and that's what I meant when I said not much has changed: what was
> > bad about about the idea of Debian paying people I still think is bad
> > today. And I don't think I'm a
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:02:57PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
I meant that we would say that stable is supported by the security team.
And instead of saying that Jessie was supported by the LTS team, we
would say s
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:18 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
> ... and that's what I meant when I said not much has changed: what was
> bad about about the idea of Debian paying people I still think is bad
> today. And I don't think I'm alone here.
I also agree with Debian not paying members for their con
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:04:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> When I say "the circumstances were different", I mean that at the time,
> it was about paying people to do release management of testing, and that
> it was originally suggested by the DPL. In this case, it is about
> paying people t
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:56:26PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 04:31:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 01:14:13AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Debian can't afford to pay developers in general, and previous
> > > proposals to pay specific d
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 04:31:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 01:14:13AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Debian can't afford to pay developers in general, and previous
> > proposals to pay specific developers were not well received.
> That was over a decade ago. The cir
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 01:14:13AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Debian can't afford to pay developers in general, and previous
> proposals to pay specific developers were not well received.
That was over a decade ago. The circumstances at the time were also
different.
--
To the thief who stole
On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 20:51 +, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:02:57PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
> > wrote:
> > > I meant that we would say that stable is supported by the security
> > > team. A
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:02:57PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > I meant that we would say that stable is supported by the security
> > team. And instead of saying that Jessie was supported by the LTS
> > team, we
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:02:57PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> I meant that we would say that stable is supported by the security team.
> And instead of saying that Jessie was supported by the LTS team, we
> would say supported by Freexian.
I would object to that, on the grounds
My brief 2p - I hope we can improve the interaction and experience of
LTS for the whole project: although I don't use (yet) or contribute
(yet) to the LTS effort, I think it's a *great* idea and a real benefit
to Debian in the world. I'm glad some friends are able to support
themselves by working
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 13:02 -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:05:18AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > On 2018-10-26 10:26:09, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
[...]
> > > 2) Say "supported by Security team" versus "supported by Freexian",
> > > instead o
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 11:05 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-10-26 10:26:09, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
[...]
> > 3) Stop using LTS as a "label" for oldstable releases?
>
> I am not sure how that would help anything. :) I do like, however, the
> idea brought by Jeremy Stanley in a
On 2018-10-26 13:02:57, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
>> > 5) Is that not true anymore with Extended LTS and CIP?
>>
>> Sorry, what is not true? #4? If so, I think people should *still*
>> install the latest supported Debian release (stable or stretch right
>> now) and not LTS or ELTS, when
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:05:18AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-10-26 10:26:09, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > I am guessing one of the other (incorrect) assumption users might make
> > is that the "LTS version" is preferred over other versions. That's how
> > LTS works for Lin
On 2018-10-26 10:26:09, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 09:30:46AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:15 AM Sean Whitton wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue 23 Oct 2018 at 05:06PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In short: Make it very clear if you wa
On 2018-10-26 10:26:09 -0300 (-0300), Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
[...]
> Using the LTS term in a slightly different way than the "industry
> standard" now means we need to spend a little more effort on users
> education.
[...]
Just a data point: under pressure from downstream consumers t
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 09:30:46AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:15 AM Sean Whitton wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 23 Oct 2018 at 05:06PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> > >
> > > In short: Make it very clear if you want to provide long-term support
> > > for your project. Talk to the
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 09:15:31PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Noah writes that the latest image is 8.7. The latest jessie version is
8.11 according to https://wiki.debian.org/DebianJessie.
Ok, then obviously nobody cares. :) Either way, the important thing is
that security updates are enab
]] Michael Stone
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:05:35PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >We should not be in the business of distributing known-vulnerable
> >software. There are practical considerations around point releases and
> >such which makes this not-really-true for a period of time after t
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:05:35PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
We should not be in the business of distributing known-vulnerable
software. There are practical considerations around point releases and
such which makes this not-really-true for a period of time after there's
a security update out
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> The question
> here was simply about discoverability. If you're a Debian user just
> beginning exploration of public cloud alternatives, should we make it
> easy for you to launch LTS instead of stable?
I don't see any reason to make it hard, but i
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:05:35PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > To be clear, the ongoing cost to the cloud team of dealing with jessie
> > on AWS (where this issue originally came up) has been exactly zero,
> > afaict. That is, we haven't actually updated anything in >18 months.
> > Users who
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:15 AM Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> On Tue 23 Oct 2018 at 05:06PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> >
> > In short: Make it very clear if you want to provide long-term support
> > for your project. Talk to the LTS team in case you need help. Nobody is
> > forced to do anything.
>
Hello Markus,
On Tue 23 Oct 2018 at 05:06PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I believe LTS is not a black and white issue as it is depicted in this
> thread so far.
Yes, that is fair enough.
> This is the first time that someone expresses concern how LTS affects
> other subprojects but I don't t
]] Noah Meyerhans
> To be clear, the ongoing cost to the cloud team of dealing with jessie
> on AWS (where this issue originally came up) has been exactly zero,
> afaict. That is, we haven't actually updated anything in >18 months.
> Users who launch a jessie image there get 8.7, with 106 pending
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:03:39AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> TL;DR: Why not just delegate image management to the LTS team once
> oldstable because LTS just like we do with security? Zobel also provided
> a good template for the images life cycle which could clarify this on
> debian-cloud@, w
Hi Steve!
On 2018-10-23 04:26:18, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> So I'm worried that those of us who have *not* volunteered to support
> LTS are being pressured into spending our time on it anyway. What can
> we do to fix that? How/where do we clarify for our users (and
> developers!) what LTS means, and
[I am trimming the CC list a little. Steve is subscribed to debian-lts.
Our leader is subscribed to debian-lts and debian-devel and drowns in
emails anyway. I hope you agree.]
Am 23.10.18 um 15:47 schrieb Sean Whitton:
[...]
> The more LTS is integrated with the regular project, the more that team
Hello Raphael,
On Tue 23 Oct 2018 at 09:52AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Instead we are rather aiming to integrate LTS more and more everywhere.
> However, when LTS is becoming a burden on other teams, we should
> definitely look how the LTS team can help to alleviate that burden.
> Because a
Hi Steve,
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> So I'm worried that those of us who have *not* volunteered to support
> LTS are being pressured into spending our time on it anyway. What can
> we do to fix that? How/where do we clarify for our users (and
> developers!) what LTS means, and wh
I've seen this sort of thing done elsewhere and the way they did it was to
put a large amount of separation between the two.
So the main site only mentioned the old releases in a historical context
and pointed to a separate website which did the LTS. Any page for the older
versions had a prominent
Hi,
I'm quite concerned by what I think is a user perception problem
around LTS. When the LTS project started up, discussions made it clear
that existing maintainers and teams were *encouraged* but not
*required* to help with the LTS effort. Paid effort would be used to
help fill in for security s
39 matches
Mail list logo
