On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 17:30 -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote: > On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, maximilian attems wrote: > > > disagreed, > > all the archs managed in the d-k svn got their updates steadily. > > problems are the trees outside of it as well d-i udebs relying > > on a stable abi, which is easily broken on many security fixes. > > Quite on the contrary, with the current way of doing things we are > continuously in a state with a skew between k-i versions on different > arches. As Anders described, every arch maintainer builds the k-i against > there own "arch-specific" k-s upload, which causes sync problems whenever > a complete rebuild on all arches is required. I believe, that ideally k-i > for _all_ arches should be rebuilt after every k-s upload, and Sven is > working on a single source package for all k-i images to implement exactly > that. > > > don't think so, > > agreed with dillinger that current way works. > > In the recent DPL campaign a lot of attention was focused on the lack of > communication withing Debian. My proposal is one way to somewhat improve > it within a kernel team, for what it's worth. If people insist on doing it > the old way, fine with me.
Personally, I think it helps to eliminate points of required communication when dealing with largeish teams. We shouldn't eliminate the ability nor the desire, just the need. Requiring approval/review points should only be done when necessary, imo, because they will tend to create bottlenecks, and angry people if they need to be bi-passed on occasion. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
