On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:54:32AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > > > > > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support > > > of testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support > > > (security response time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only > > > needed for tier-1 arches but not for the tier-2 which will not > > > officially release a stable. > > > > What is the detailed reasoning for this requirement anyway ? > > I thought that was fairly clear - a 12 day build of a security fix is > unacceptable, especially since it hampers getting that fix out the door > for everyone else.
So what ? If those arches that are slower get security updates a bit later, its better than getting no security updates at all. Also, security updates often have a embargo time of a couple of weeks anyway, so ... > > And would a ten-way redundant distcc cluster count as one machine ? > > I would certainly interpret it that way, and hopefully the people behind > the proposal would as well. I seriously doubt it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]