[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Adam> Yes. More care should be given to the base set. We need to file bugs
> Adam> now, and agressively, against them.
>
> I have a better idea. Let's take out the "middle man" somewhat...
>
> Adam> A lot of people blame bf for delaying release but in fact we spent
> Adam> much of our time waiting for fixes in base or kernels.
>
> Why wait around for someone else, who may be busy with something in
> their own immediate surroundings? I think we should *negotiate* to
> become co-maintainer's of those packages. Perhaps we should
> institute this in Policy? That the `debian-boot' team is the
> co-maintainer of each base package, giving us rights to make uploads,
> etc??? Should I attempt to draft a proposal? That would make each
> of the maintainers of base packages a member of our team. Each would
> retain main control over their package perhaps?
I don't think so. If we need to NMU stuff, why don't we just do so?
I think already, as maintainers of the boot-floppies/installer team,
our word and our work carries a lot of weight with the archive
maintainers.
I don't see any reason to give this group more responsibilities.
Proper delagation and pre-testing and bug filing against base packages
is what has to go on early. So I would argue that having an
aggressive testing team who is testing pure base as early as possible
is going to fix the problem -- not any additional policy.
> [potential other thread here] ... those packages ought to be CVS
> tracked where we can all get at them also. Vendor tracked. Strict
> rules about how CVS is to be used, akin to what the DRI people use,
> perhaps?
>
> http://dri.sourceforge.net/cvspolicy.txt
Ugh. Ick. I much prefer, and we are much closer to, XP
methodologies. Having all developers working on branches sounds like
a huge nightmare. It's a much better goal for people to integrate
their work as quickly as possible (i.e., every day), perhaps
supporting this with a test suite.
> ... that and a tagging scheme something like how `cvs-buildpackage'
> is supposed to work? What do yous think?
Well, yes, we should codify that some. But for debian-installer, I
would hope you could pretty much just use cvs-buildpackage to build
it.
> To keep control over the package in the hands of the maintainer
> (perhaps not necessary in all cases, but is in some), we could create
> a patch queue mailing list for each one. Each team member keeps an
> anoncvs checkout of them. When you modify something, you create a
> patch and ChangeLog, and mail it to the patch queue for that package,
> for the maintainer to review, reject or approve, apply, and commit.
> (This is how the XEmacs team handles it.)
I don't see how such bureaucracy and additional overhead is going to
make our lives easier.
--
.....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
