Re: Bug#658341: Call for Vote: upload of multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 08:16:34AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:08:13 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli  
> wrote:
> > I hereby submit to your attention the "dpkg multi-arch conflict".
> > I believe the issue is well-known, so I describe it only briefly
> > below;

> I also believe we've had sufficient discussion about this issue, and I
> therefore call for an immediate vote on the following ballot.  My thanks
> to Russ Allbery for help drafting the text.

> A. While recognizing the substantial benefits of thorough code review, the
>Technical Committee believes the goal of multiarch support in the
>Debian wheezy release is sufficiently important as to warrant accepting
>the current draft implementation into the archive, even if code review
>by the primary dpkg C maintainer cannot be completed in time.  However,
>as much review as possible is strongly desired.
> 
>The Technical Committee therefore overrides the decision of the dpkg
>maintainer to require complete code review before upload of the
>multiarch implementation in dpkg to the Debian archive and sets the
>following upload dates:
> 
>February 6th: upload to experimental for general testing
>February 20th: upload to unstable
> 
>For each of those deadlines, if no implementation of dpkg with
>multiarch support has been uploaded to the archive for that
>distribution by that date, Raphaël Hertzog is empowered by the
>Technical Committee to upload a version of dpkg with multiarch support
>to that distribution.  The upload may be done on or after that date,
>when, in his judgement, the dpkg implementation meets the quality
>standards expected for a Debian core package in those archive
>distributions.
> 
>The Technical Committee strongly encourages anyone with the required
>knowledge to review the multiarch implementation proposed for upload
>and provide the results of that review to the debian-dpkg list as soon
>as possible so that the code can receive as much review as possible and
>the results of that review can be incorporated into the code by those
>dates.  Similarly, the Technical Committee encourages as broad testing
>and review of the experimental implementation as possible so that as
>many bugs as possible can be resolved prior to uploading it to
>unstable.
> 
>This option requires a 3:1 majority.
> 
> B. The Technical Committee declines to override the decision of the dpkg
>maintainer to hold the dpkg multiarch implementation until he can
>finish code review.
> 
> C. Further discussion.

I vote ACB.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#658341: Call for Vote: upload of multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Andreas Barth]

* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [120205 10:34]:
> * Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [120202 15:16]:
> > A. While recognizing the substantial benefits of thorough code review, the
> >Technical Committee believes the goal of multiarch support in the
> >Debian wheezy release is sufficiently important as to warrant accepting
> >the current draft implementation into the archive, even if code review
> >by the primary dpkg C maintainer cannot be completed in time.  However,
> >as much review as possible is strongly desired.
> > 
> >The Technical Committee therefore overrides the decision of the dpkg
> >maintainer to require complete code review before upload of the
> >multiarch implementation in dpkg to the Debian archive and sets the
> >following upload dates:
> > 
> >February 6th: upload to experimental for general testing
> >February 20th: upload to unstable
> > 
> >For each of those deadlines, if no implementation of dpkg with
> >multiarch support has been uploaded to the archive for that
> >distribution by that date, Raphaël Hertzog is empowered by the
> >Technical Committee to upload a version of dpkg with multiarch support
> >to that distribution.  The upload may be done on or after that date,
> >when, in his judgement, the dpkg implementation meets the quality
> >standards expected for a Debian core package in those archive
> >distributions.
> > 
> >The Technical Committee strongly encourages anyone with the required
> >knowledge to review the multiarch implementation proposed for upload
> >and provide the results of that review to the debian-dpkg list as soon
> >as possible so that the code can receive as much review as possible and
> >the results of that review can be incorporated into the code by those
> >dates.  Similarly, the Technical Committee encourages as broad testing
> >and review of the experimental implementation as possible so that as
> >many bugs as possible can be resolved prior to uploading it to
> >unstable.
> > 
> >This option requires a 3:1 majority.

And with my vote (and Steves in
http://lists.debian.org/20120205092246.gb15...@virgil.dodds.net ) the
outcome is no longer in doubt, so A is the decision.


Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120205095300.ga11...@mails.so.argh.org

Bug#658341: Call for Vote: upload of multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Andreas Barth]

* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [120202 15:16]:
> A. While recognizing the substantial benefits of thorough code review, the
>Technical Committee believes the goal of multiarch support in the
>Debian wheezy release is sufficiently important as to warrant accepting
>the current draft implementation into the archive, even if code review
>by the primary dpkg C maintainer cannot be completed in time.  However,
>as much review as possible is strongly desired.
> 
>The Technical Committee therefore overrides the decision of the dpkg
>maintainer to require complete code review before upload of the
>multiarch implementation in dpkg to the Debian archive and sets the
>following upload dates:
> 
>February 6th: upload to experimental for general testing
>February 20th: upload to unstable
> 
>For each of those deadlines, if no implementation of dpkg with
>multiarch support has been uploaded to the archive for that
>distribution by that date, Raphaël Hertzog is empowered by the
>Technical Committee to upload a version of dpkg with multiarch support
>to that distribution.  The upload may be done on or after that date,
>when, in his judgement, the dpkg implementation meets the quality
>standards expected for a Debian core package in those archive
>distributions.
> 
>The Technical Committee strongly encourages anyone with the required
>knowledge to review the multiarch implementation proposed for upload
>and provide the results of that review to the debian-dpkg list as soon
>as possible so that the code can receive as much review as possible and
>the results of that review can be incorporated into the code by those
>dates.  Similarly, the Technical Committee encourages as broad testing
>and review of the experimental implementation as possible so that as
>many bugs as possible can be resolved prior to uploading it to
>unstable.
> 
>This option requires a 3:1 majority.
> 
> B. The Technical Committee declines to override the decision of the dpkg
>maintainer to hold the dpkg multiarch implementation until he can
>finish code review.
> 
> C. Further discussion.

Voting ABC


Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120205093459.ga11...@mails.so.argh.org

Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Bdale Garbee]

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:16:34 -0700, Bdale Garbee  wrote:
> I therefore call for an immediate vote on the following ballot.

With votes from 7 of 8 committee members, all ranking A as their first
preference, the outcome of this ballot is no longer in doubt, and we have
met the required > 3:1 majority.  

The decision of the committee is:

> A. While recognizing the substantial benefits of thorough code review, the
>Technical Committee believes the goal of multiarch support in the
>Debian wheezy release is sufficiently important as to warrant accepting
>the current draft implementation into the archive, even if code review
>by the primary dpkg C maintainer cannot be completed in time.  However,
>as much review as possible is strongly desired.
> 
>The Technical Committee therefore overrides the decision of the dpkg
>maintainer to require complete code review before upload of the
>multiarch implementation in dpkg to the Debian archive and sets the
>following upload dates:
> 
>February 6th: upload to experimental for general testing
>February 20th: upload to unstable
> 
>For each of those deadlines, if no implementation of dpkg with
>multiarch support has been uploaded to the archive for that
>distribution by that date, Raphaël Hertzog is empowered by the
>Technical Committee to upload a version of dpkg with multiarch support
>to that distribution.  The upload may be done on or after that date,
>when, in his judgement, the dpkg implementation meets the quality
>standards expected for a Debian core package in those archive
>distributions.
> 
>The Technical Committee strongly encourages anyone with the required
>knowledge to review the multiarch implementation proposed for upload
>and provide the results of that review to the debian-dpkg list as soon
>as possible so that the code can receive as much review as possible and
>the results of that review can be incorporated into the code by those
>dates.  Similarly, the Technical Committee encourages as broad testing
>and review of the experimental implementation as possible so that as
>many bugs as possible can be resolved prior to uploading it to
>unstable.

Thank you again to Russ Allbery for help with the resolution text, and
to my fellow committee members for prompt attention to this matter. 

Bdale


pgppziENIVfcz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Russ Allbery]

Bdale Garbee  writes:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:16:34 -0700, Bdale Garbee  wrote:

>> I therefore call for an immediate vote on the following ballot.

> With votes from 7 of 8 committee members, all ranking A as their first
> preference, the outcome of this ballot is no longer in doubt, and we
> have met the required > 3:1 majority.

I think at least some of this should go to debian-devel-announce.  I'm not
sure if we should send the entire ruling there, or select bits and pieces
of it, but at least the testing part probably needs to reach a broader
audience.

Do we have a past precedent for how we handle publicizing tech-ctte
decisions?

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d39txcd5@windlord.stanford.edu

Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 12:18:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think at least some of this should go to debian-devel-announce.  I'm not
> sure if we should send the entire ruling there, or select bits and pieces
> of it, but at least the testing part probably needs to reach a broader
> audience.
>
> Do we have a past precedent for how we handle publicizing tech-ctte
> decisions?

FWIW, I'll surely mention this in my next "bits from the DPL" mail, but
it won't happen before early March. Also, I expect that when the upload
happens [1] the uploader to send a wide call for testing to d-d-a. This
is just to say that I don't think we should fear people will overlook
the practical impact of the decisions.

However, the idea of systematically announcing tech-ctte decisions to
d-d-a (hinted by your last paragraph) seems a very good one to me.
Please do :-)

Cheers.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2012/02/msg00010.html
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ..   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ..   . . o
Debian Project Leader...   @zack on identi.ca   ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Bdale Garbee]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:18:46 -0800, Russ Allbery  wrote:
> Do we have a past precedent for how we handle publicizing tech-ctte
> decisions?

Not really.

A note from the package maintainers calling for help testing would seem
most appropriate to me, actually.

Bdale


pgpjwvxZbZZhk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Russ Allbery]

Bdale Garbee  writes:
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:18:46 -0800, Russ Allbery  wrote:

>> Do we have a past precedent for how we handle publicizing tech-ctte
>> decisions?

> Not really.

> A note from the package maintainers calling for help testing would seem
> most appropriate to me, actually.

Yeah, that makes sense.  Maybe we should leave that for Raphael to handle.
Although separately it does seem like it would be a good idea to have a
standard procedure for publicizing decisions as we make them.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zkcwu9ou@windlord.stanford.edu

Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Bdale Garbee]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:44:49 -0800, Russ Allbery  wrote:
> Bdale Garbee  writes:
> > On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:18:46 -0800, Russ Allbery  wrote:
> 
> >> Do we have a past precedent for how we handle publicizing tech-ctte
> >> decisions?
> 
> > Not really.
> 
> > A note from the package maintainers calling for help testing would seem
> > most appropriate to me, actually.
> 
> Yeah, that makes sense.  Maybe we should leave that for Raphael to handle.
> Although separately it does seem like it would be a good idea to have a
> standard procedure for publicizing decisions as we make them.

They tend to get recorded on our web page, but I realize that's not the
same thing.

Bdale


pgpEZgbHnTe9s.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> They tend to get recorded on our web page, but I realize that's not
> the same thing.

Yeah, already did that:

http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte


Don Armstrong

-- 
UF: What's your favorite coffee blend?
PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? "If geiger
counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick."

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120206054412.gp12...@teltox.donarmstrong.com