On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 21:41 -0400, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell
wrote:
> Yea? When are you filing a patch that corrects it?
>
> complaining does nothing. we all know what would be
> better and move toward it
>
> and your forgetting the by-law: you don't fix what
> you think is better by
Yea? When are you filing a patch that corrects it?
complaining does nothing. we all know what would be
better and move toward it
and your forgetting the by-law: you don't fix what
you think is better by breaking software that works
unless you can really prevent all breakage
after all. what y
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:51:14PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> * Consider other ways in which our RC-bug-fixing efforts can be
>improved, especially during the latter part of the freeze.
I think one way to improve hard to reproduce bugs or bugs in uncommon
package would be to get more users i
On 2013-05-10 14:57:46 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Charles Plessy, 2013-05-09]
> > For a large number of packages if not all, we should allow the
> > package maintainers to manually migrate their packages to Testing during the
> > Freeze, within boundaries set on debian-devel-announc
On Fri, 10 May 2013 10:03:46 -0400
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 04:51:14 PM Ian Jackson wrote:
> > So I would like to suggest that we should have a thread where we:
> >
> > * Try to identify the main ways in which bugs can be "hard" (which
> >might be technical, polit
On Wednesday, May 08, 2013 04:51:14 PM Ian Jackson wrote:
> So I would like to suggest that we should have a thread where we:
>
> * Try to identify the main ways in which bugs can be "hard" (which
>might be technical, political, or a mixture)
>
> * Try to think of workflows which might over
[Charles Plessy, 2013-05-09]
> For a large number of packages if not all, we should allow the
> package maintainers to manually migrate their packages to Testing during the
> Freeze, within boundaries set on debian-devel-announce by the release team.
+1
or a soft freeze (as described ab
Le mercredi 08 mai 2013 à 16:51 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> * Try to identify the main ways in which bugs can be "hard" (which
>might be technical, political, or a mixture)
One of the general problems I have been running into include several
(sometimes all) of the following patterns.
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:24:30 +0200
Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:28:58PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Other steps to take as preventative measures:
>
> > * Make it a *MUST* that all transitions, no matter how small, are
> > checked with the release team starting
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:24:30 +0200
Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:28:58PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Other steps to take as preventative measures:
>
> > * Make it a *MUST* that all transitions, no matter how small, are
> > checked with the release team starting
Hi,
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:28:58PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Other steps to take as preventative measures:
> * Make it a *MUST* that all transitions, no matter how small, are
> checked with the release team starting from as soon as the freeze is
> announced (not just after it starts) suc
On 09/05/13 at 13:20 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:55:03 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > Also, we should be more agressive at getting down the number of RC bugs
> > by automatically removing RC-buggy not-so-important packages. For
> > example, if we keep the current
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Also, we should be more agressive at getting down the number of RC bugs
> by automatically removing RC-buggy not-so-important packages.
This sounds like a good idea. If somebody is interested in the package
they can easily reintroduce it after they have fixed the bug.
-
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:55:03 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Also, we should be more agressive at getting down the number of RC bugs
> by automatically removing RC-buggy not-so-important packages. For
> example, if we keep the current time-based freeze policy for jessie, we
> could announce tha
Hi!
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Also, we should be more agressive at getting down the number of RC bugs
> by automatically removing RC-buggy not-so-important packages. For
> example, if we keep the current time-based freeze policy for jessie, we
> could announce that all not-so-important RC-buggy pa
On 09/05/13 at 08:32 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> The execution of the time-based freeze might have failed. Also,
> "testing" did not serving its purpose of "always being in (a
> near-)releasable state"[2] with its 500+ RC bugs at the start of the
> freeze was not ideal (either?).
I think that
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:51:14PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> It is good to have it released now, but I think we are all (mostly?)
> agreed that wheezy took longer to release than we would have liked.
> In particular, the RC bug count didn't drop "quickly enough".
Thanks for bringing this up!
I
On 2013-05-09 00:48, anarcat wrote:
> [...]
> In fact, I am of the opinion that we should relax the requirements that
> the release team systematically review every diff posted during the
> freeze, especially if the freeze is going to last almost a year... That
> always seemed to me to be an insane
Le Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:48:01PM -0400, anarcat a écrit :
>
> In fact, I am of the opinion that we should relax the requirements that
> the release team systematically review every diff posted during the
> freeze, especially if the freeze is going to last almost a year... That
> always seemed to
How about a "slush"? A few projects have this period where changes are
not completely forbidden, but slightly restricted.
For example, we could have a period where new upstream releases (yes,
with huge diffstats) would be accepted if they fix a RC bug.
In fact, I am of the opinion that we should
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Neil Williams wrote:
> (We have this now in the PTS for WNPP issues, an extension to "RC bugs
> in dependencies" could also be really useful.)
Thanks for the idea, I'll pursue implementing this with QA
infrastructure folks.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/P
On Wed, 8 May 2013 16:51:14 +0100
Ian Jackson wrote:
> So I would like to suggest that we should have a thread where we:
I suspect a wiki page will be needed at some point...
> * Try to identify the main ways in which bugs can be "hard" (which
>might be technical, political, or a mixture)
It is good to have it released now, but I think we are all (mostly?)
agreed that wheezy took longer to release than we would have liked.
In particular, the RC bug count didn't drop "quickly enough".
Firstly, I want to say that I don't think this was anyone's fault. So
I don't want to lay any blam
23 matches
Mail list logo
