On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:17:21PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> The problem is, you need to entry points, one for testing as we know it,
> one for rolling.
<snip>
> So basically you split our users in two non overlapping sets, meaning
> that you divide coverage and tests. How come is that in the distribution
> interest?! I think it's not, I think it's resource squandering.
Yes, and it *will* split up users into two camps, just like any parallel
system of development would. I don't think that's necessarily bad,
since some users/developers would want to be split because of diverging
interests anyway.
The question is, can it be done in such a way as to keep the level of
attention and QA that we want to have on the candidate releases while
we're preparing them. I completely agree that it's a non-starter if
we can't address that.
> So please, what is so useful and important that we wast our precious
> resources here, have two inconciliable Debians at once? "Because users
> want it" doesn't fly. I couldn't care less, I'm interested about *why*
> they want it, not the mere fact that they do. Because when you know why
> they want it, maybe there will be better answers that don't make
> releasing even more brittle and burn even more people out.
As the release process drags on, non-release related activity decreases,
which I'm suggesting has a detrimental effect on the project (including
the *next* stable release to a certain extent) for a number of reasons
previously outlined.
If the union of people who are interested in using and/or contributing to
the respective parts (stable prep vs unstable) is considerably larger than
the intersection, then to me it makes a lot of sense to explore whether
there's a better way we can serve both groups at the same time.
sean
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110501224521.gc23...@cobija.connexer.com
