On 02/05/11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun May 01, 2011 at 21:53:58 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > 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. > > No, it just needs that rolling is running on a different dak instance as > testing. The same we had for volatile, the same we had for backports. > The team (whoever that is) wo is interested in the rolling releases can > show it is worth the effort, then we can start thinking integrating it > back into the main archive.
What's the point? Outside of freezes, rolling == testing. What's the point of running a separate dak instance? It would be about as efficient to collect statements of users saying "if rolling existed, I would use it". - 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/20110502100932.ga17...@xanadu.blop.info
