This is a tough call, but I suggest that it may result in a net saving of time to abandon the current test cycle. We know, for example, that the kernel is going to have to be changed before release, first because it is bad on general principles to release on the 2.2.15pre20 kernel instead of the official 2.2.15 kernel, and second because there is at least one critical bug (the Adaptec SCSI problem, bug 63946) which is going to force a kernel patch.
I don't mean to start an argument here about whether there are any significant differences between 2.2.15pre20 and 2.2.15 as released, because I consider that irrelevant: the credibility of the whole distribution would be severely damaged by actually releasing a "pre" kernel, and I doubt that anyone really intends to do it. Certainly, the auric move is a one-shot deal that will never be repeated, so we can look at this as just a run of bad luck. If a new set of boot floppies can really be ready in a week, then I think it makes most sense to abandon the current test cycle, apply whatever fixes for release-critical bugs are present in incoming, and go from there. If we are talking about changing things on the level of the kernel, and I think it is fairly definite that we are, then I have to regard it as doubtful what we would learn from continuing the present test cycle. -- Mike On 2000-05-15 at 20:22 +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > I think it's good that we tested boot-floppies and CD image generation > -- obviously it needed the test, since it didn't work. The boot floppies > are ready now, but we still have no images. I think we lost about a week > to the auric move, however. I hope that next time it will go faster. * * * > We'll also throw away the boot-floppies we have now. So I'll pose this > to the people working on them: What do you prefer? Go with 2.2.13 for > a two-week test, or stop this cycle and prepare new ones about a week > from now?
