On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 05:57:58AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > * September 1st
> > HOWTO use debian-installer to install sarge posted to > > -devel-announce (volunteers appreciated) > Ah yes, what a wonderful read that was ... no, wait, this never > happened. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Beta testing of installation with sarge CD images by > > adventurous users > There are sarge CD images? gosh. http://gluck.debian.org/cdimage/testing/netinst/i386/ (and now powerpc/, alpha/), as documented in the post to d-d-a. ;) > > * September 15th > > Beta testing of the installation (debian-installer, tasksel, > > base-config, package installs, CD images, everything) > Is everything even ready for this yet? Well, on some architectures, it seems so. :) There are problems with glibc headers on at least (ia64,alpha) which render debootstrap useless on those architectures; the current plan seems to be for glibc to kick the dependency on those non-userspaceable headers in the very near future. (Hold on to your hats.) > I think it's fair to say that we're not going to reach the following > state within 14 days unless a miracle, or a hell of a lot of work > happens: Well, let's not dismiss the "hell of a lot of work" option. I'm happy to distribute spades to any volunteers. > So "Where are we now?" Having played with d-i some and kept a watchful > eye on the release-critical list, I guess we're currently at the > "September 15th" dateline which puts us roughly 14 days behind schedule. I think we're ahead of the September 15th milestone, but not as far ahead as we might wish. Which means we're also not as far behind as we might have feared. :) > > * October 1st > > Drop the RC bug list by ~150 bugs to ~100 > > (via removals, fixes and workarounds) > Current RC bug stats: > Total number of release-critical bugs: 679 > Number that will disappear after removing packages marked [REMOVE]: 53 > Number that have a patch: 94 > Number that have a fix prepared and waiting to upload: 29 > Number that are being ignored: 15 > Number on packages not in testing: 197 > So with a bit of math, that sounds like 414 RC bugs left, with 123 that > have either patches (why aren't they applied?) or pending (why aren't > they uploaded?) > We're a HELL of a long way north of the target of 100 RC bugs left! Yes, indeed we are. Though FWIW, since AJ has clarified that the timeline was intended to indicate those activities that would take place *between* the times above and below, we are at present only 164 RC bugs behind schedule. Oh, no, wait -- there's a math error in the timeline, and 500-150-150 != 100... so I'm not sure how many bugs behind that really puts us. :) It's been noted several times that the end of the 0-day NMU period was accompanied by a marked reversal in the RC bug graph. I think it's time for a group debriefing of this experience. I was pleasantly surprised to have not heard of a single complaint about bad NMUs during this period, either personally in response to my own NMUs or on the lists. I found it helped me work more efficiently on packages that needed attention, and I know it would speed things up while trying to push large clots of packages into testing at once! As a result, I think we should seriously consider retaining this 0-day policy for the remainder of the present release cycle, even if only for RC bugs; it could give us the extra boost we need to catch up on our RC list. Does anyone have a different reaction to the 0-day NMU experiment? Looking at the graphs, I know I'm not the only one who took advantage of it. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
