Excerpts from Peter Bonivart's message of Wed Oct 14 16:44:50 -0400 2009: > That freeze also affected unstable for some reason. We were > basically not being able to release anything for weeks. If were > going to revive this corpse we should still be able to release to > current.
I agree that a freeze shouldn't be a 'stop the world' event. You're using 'current' as we commonly do now, as in 'where Phil puts packages'? If this is still open for business during a freeze then there would need to be some intermediary (a staging area) between stable and current. It should start as a snapshot of current. Updates to the snapshot should be of only two types: 1. Update to fix open bugs on the package so it can be moved into stable. 2. Removal so packages don't go to stable. > Also, we should ask ourselves what's the most important thing for > the users? Is it really stability which we hardly can guarantee or > is it just a frozen state? Many sync our mirrors from time to time > with no interest in having the latest and greatest, most important > to them is that every machine gets the same version. I think there is merit to this view, but I also think that Phil is right too. It will be dependent on the user/site. Even though I run current/ on my own boxes, I'm always a little nervous of large updates. We've seen some fairly high visibility breakages recently that would really stink on production machines. > We're a small organization and to put all the work James did onto > someone else, even if shared by a few, is not time well spent in my > opinion. We should rethink this, not just start it up again. It died > for a reason. Suggestions? I haven't been through this before, so I'm a fresh slate in this regard. Personally, if I knew that stable/ was moving forward at a regular interval, I'd probably run most of my boxes from it, leaning toward the stability side rather than the standardized versions side. As it is, I run current since that's where I can get lots of things that I want on all my machines that aren't part of stable. One thing I'd suggest is to only aim for 2 stable releases per year. More than that and too much time is spent in freeze states, I think. As a quick straw poll, what sort of major issues are people dealing with in their packages right now that would see you personally withhold the package from a stable release? [I'm considering Phil's "offer" of pushing this forward...] Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 GPG Key Id: 8E89F6D2; Key Server: pgp.mit.edu Contact me to arrange for a CAcert assurance meeting.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
