by *corbintech
<https://forums.mageia.org/en/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=646>* ยป
Jun 13th, '11, 22:12
I quit the ML because I was not doing it right (never used a list like
that before).
So if I may, I will post here what somebody responded to me and write my
response here.
complete rolling release would put a QA strain on each of the
levels. think
about it, it's not only the current package being updated, but also the
combinations with other packages. (AND also all the long time supported
versions)
This would mean that for each package being release, it'll have to
work with
the current set of other packages, but also with the packages you'll
be doing
next.
if you have this constant level of QA, you need alot of resources
(which we
don't have in QA), and as an extra result, you'll not have the same
level of
QA you could have, when you're doing a release.
it's much easier (as devs) to just choose a subset of packages, and
test those
out.
if you have X QA-devs, and you have 1 subset of versions of
packages, you can
test alot more than if you have several versions of several packages
that need
to work all with each other in almost any combinations...
not to mention that you need an extra step with QA to put a "group" of
packages from one level to the next...
sorry, but with our current resources, i vote no. i want current
resources to
be used much more efficiently than with a rolling release.
Why do we keep acting like there is no other way to pool resources? I
have never helped develop in any way, teach me something and I'll lend a
hand... Others may do the same.. ASK!
QA comes from testing... Test... Test... And test more... To make sure
what you have works and works well. Let's change up my idea a bit and
satisfy everyone... Let's compromise...
How about Cooker (or whatever you call) rolls to rolling (can be very
stable???!!!) with release cycle releases based on a snapshot of either
of the rolling models and supported for X amount of time? This could
make those whom want a rolling release model happy and those whom want a
release cycle.
Would this be hard? I don't really think so as development is already
based on a rolling model (cooker or whatever), all that will have to be
done is packages roll down the line. I seen in the start of all these
talks you wanted to support 3 structures of systems... Here they are!
What about this? Get the community involved!
