On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:50:04 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > From the announcement: > >--- >Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases >are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC infrastructure is >intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and the >ftpmasters also intend to provide porter teams with the option of >releasing periodic (or not-so-periodic) per-architecture snapshots of >unstable. >---
Which is widely regarded as a bad joke of a replacement for what the architectures get today. I am inclined to re-word to "We don't leave the architectures out in the cold, but we'll leave them out in the cold." >What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll >be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems >that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result >in a new "snapshot-20050732/main/binary-foo" tree matching the work in >unstable and a corresponding source tree; at which point CDs/DVDs can be >burnt from the snapshot, and unstable development can continue. So you basically forbid releases that are in sync with Debian stable. >And yes, it's a serious amount of work already, which is why the >security and release teams want to stop having to do it :) I fail to see the signatures of security people on the Vancouver Paper, and it doesn't mention that members of the security team have attended the Vancouver Meeting. If ftpmaster and/or release don't want to do the work they have been appointed to do any more, please step down from your jobs or at least accept new team members. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
