On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > ... but there are times when you
> > just have to make a clean break. Going between libc versions was one
> > of those times, as was going from a.out to elf. Otherwise, what are
> > major number changes for?
>
> This is simply not true. When we moved
ok for me.
> So, in detail:
> Every three months (fixed date) we copy the current `unstable' into
> `frozen'. At this point `stable', `frozen' and `unstable' should all
> stay interoperable both in source and binary form.
alternative :
seperate place for new uploads and unstable, but well know
Vincent Renardias wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > > Every three months (fixed date) we copy the current `unstable' into
> > > `frozen'. At this point `stable', `frozen' and `unstable' should all
> > > stay interoperable both in source and binary form.
> >
> > This is stil
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe we should raise our demands to our developers: We should probably make
> clear *before* someone wants to become a developer that the job of a
> developer is not only care about the packages he/she maintains, but also the
> quality of the whole dis
On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 08:02:05PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This again means that we need to encourage more maintainers to work on
> > multi-package-solution and to skip the 300-mini-cathedral-situation.
> > Only few people are working on package tha
Jim writes ("Re: so what? Re: Debian development modem "):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > We must decouple our development tracks much more. I propose that we
> > resolve never again to plan a release with is not fully backward
> > compatible with the current stable
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This again means that we need to encourage more maintainers to work on
> multi-package-solution and to skip the 300-mini-cathedral-situation.
> Only few people are working on package that are not maintained by
> them, this needs to be re-considered.
I'm
On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 01:22:26PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We should abandon attempts at `social engineering' through release
> management. So, `we must do X before we release' or `you must fix bug
> Y or we should remove the package' (for non-critical Y), have to stop.
Although I see proble
On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 06:55:20AM -0600, Jim wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > We must decouple our development tracks much more. I propose that we
> > resolve never again to plan a release with is not fully backward
> > compatible with the current stable version.
>
> I like this idea mos
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Every three months (fixed date) we copy the current `unstable' into
> > `frozen'. At this point `stable', `frozen' and `unstable' should all
> > stay interoperable both in source and binary form.
>
> This is still a major operation at every freeze
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So, in detail:
>
> Every three months (fixed date) we copy the current `unstable' into
> `frozen'. At this point `stable', `frozen' and `unstable' should all
> stay interoperable both in source and binary form.
I fully agree on the idea, but IMHO 3 mont
"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> Is there a way to do a "non-maintainer release" of
Santiago> ftp.debian.org when Guy is busy?
This may be one of our biggest problems -- that such a time-critical
and important "package" is maintained by only a single volunteer.
T
I don't usually write to the list to say "me too", but I think that
is a pretty foundamental step to be taken. I completely agree with
Ian but "me too" I think the stable pool is a better approach
(even if it requires more resources to be set up).
Ciao,
> Maintainers have the final word only if th
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you unhappy with the result (hamm)? I'm not...
I'm not unhappy with hamm, but I am unhappy that we didn't have any
releases between bo and hamm.
Mind you, I've come up with workarounds, but I also had some service
outages that could have been avoided if I cou
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see any way we could have preserved compatibility more than
> we did, with the hamm release. The entire altdev scheme was devised
> for it. What more could have been done?
That was solved a long time ago, and isn't the reason hamm was
delayed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> We must decouple our development tracks much more. I propose that we
> resolve never again to plan a release with is not fully backward
> compatible with the current stable version.
I like this idea most of the time... but there are times when you just have to
make a
Hi. I apologize in advance for the somewhat negative tone of my reply.
I think that Ian's proposal is unrealistic, and does not address our
current problems at all.
Ian Jackson wrote:
> We must decouple our development tracks much more. I propose that we
> resolve never again to plan a release w
On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 01:22:26PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We must decouple our development tracks much more. I propose that we
> resolve never again to plan a release with is not fully backward
> compatible with the current stable version.
Agreed! Those of us who have been talking about pos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We should abandon the idea of `release goals'. Instead, if someone
> thinks a thing definitely needs doing by the time of a release, they
> do it. If it doesn't get done then we release anyway.
Interesting, but how doe
(I'm going to repeat here some things I said in Cologne ...)
I agree that we have a serious problem. My proposed solution is as
follows:
We should abandon attempts at `social engineering' through release
management. So, `we must do X before we release' or `you must fix bug
Y or we should remove
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> I had an interesting chat with one of my cohorts at work today about
> this topic. We spent some time thinking about the various Debian
> users we know, and tried to characterize what they want from the
> distribution. What we came up with was the notio
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> > Sorry, now I don't understand. I think we should release twice a year.
>
> What about encouraging people to press ``Debian Unstable Snapshots''
> once every couple of months.
>
> We could do the snapshot images ourselves (so that everyone's ``May
> 98'
22 matches
Mail list logo
