Hi, Sebastian Ramacher <sramac...@debian.org> (2024-11-02): > Dear toolchain, debian-installer, and image maintainers, > > We, as the release team, are aware that we are late with the > announcement of the freeze timeline for trixie. After some internal > discussions on how we want to handle the freeze for trixie based on > the lessons learnt from the bookworm release, we like to get your > feedback on our changes listed below before we announce the freeze > schedule.
It looks to me “how to avoid burning out coworkers” didn't make it into “lessons learnt”. > During the bookworm release we made the following observations: […] > * the work on d-i and images takes time and requires a non-moving set > of packages to work on The last part is not true, and has never been true in the 12+ years I've been involved. > We thus propose the following timeline: > > Milestone 1: Toolchain and d-i freeze > > As in bookworm, we start with the freeze of toolchain with the goal to > stabilize build essential packages and compilers and interpreters of > major ecosystems (Python, Ruby, Rust, Golang, Haskell, Vala, LLVM). The > list of packages that is involved can be found at [1]. > > In trixie we will also freeze all packages that produce udebs with the > intent to stabilize the relevant packages for debian-installer and > debian-boot. Changes to these packages need to be coordinated with the > respective teams. Effectively, this means that any change to a package > producing udebs will require an unblock request with an explicit ACK > from d-i to migrate and we also won't be doing any transitions of udeb > producing packages. It looks to me that's going to put more pressure on us, on me, in a continuous fashion, during the entire freeze. It really looks like you've entirely ignored what I wrote to the team about burnout. > udeb producing packages maintained by debian-boot and debian-cd are > exempt from these rules to facilitate their work. Updates to these > packages should be prepared at their maintainers' discretion and are > expected to benefit the development of the installer. That's always been the case. Thank you for not taking *that* away, I guess? > We are happy to receive your feedback - especially on the change > regarding d-i. The proposed text for the freeze policy can be found in > the following merge request on salsa: > > https://salsa.debian.org/release-team/release.debian.org/-/merge_requests/27 My favorite course of action is *not* changing anything regarding d-i (except the fingerpointing I received afterwards, that I really would have loved to avoid). Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
