On 01/05/11 at 20:51 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun May 01, 2011 at 20:02:51 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > 2. determine who is in support of each action plan, through a GR or a > > poll. > > I don't think we need a GR for that. Those who are interested in rolling > releases could show that they are interested and just doing so (like > Norbert/formorer/Rhona/... did with backports, like Joey Hess did with > testing-security, like Andi and me did with volatile, ...). > > I am aware this might need changes in some of Debian's infrastructure, > but i am quite sure if you provide help/patches/... those will be > implemented.
I don't see how that could work. Iet's assume that the goal is to demonstrate the interest in the "rename testing to rolling" scenario, without even talking about what to do during freezes. The first steps of the implementation will include: - rename testing to rolling. I don't see how ftpmasters would do it without a consensus that this is something wanted by the project. - communicate officially, to the general public, that rolling is not only a development branch, but also suited for use by the general public (given known limitations). I don't see how the press team would publish something like that without a consensus that it's what the project thinks. What was applicable for backports, testing-security or volatile is not applicable here, because the implications for the project are deeper. It's not about adding a suite with some different packages in the margin. It's about shifting developers' focus and user attention a bit. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110501195358.gb31...@xanadu.blop.info
