Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:14:21AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Uh, what the hell?
You have four people asking basically the same question, and you
wonder about this?
Yes, because _all_ of them leap to the conclusion that I'm trying to delay
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 09:34:34AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
Changes are currently being implemented to improve the handling of
proposed-updates, in order to have those point releases happing more
Since I'm currently running very low on time it may very well be that I
completely missed
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:19:19AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Did you talk to the stable release manager before trying to reduce his
work load?
Of course I did.
In the last four weeks?
Yes:
Feb 22nd, I mail both Joey (as SRM) and the security team noting the
queue changes
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 07:57:18AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
*shrug* I guess you've got a right to your own impression. Mine differs,
and I think I've got more to base it on than you do -- or than Joey does
for that matter. What do you want me to say?
Which if course is a valid argument
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:14:21AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Uh, what the hell?
You have four people asking basically the same question, and you
wonder about this?
Yes, because _all_ of them leap to the conclusion that I'm trying to delay
something, when I'm not.
I sent the mail requesting
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 05:45:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:14:21AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Uh, what the hell?
You have four people asking basically the same question, and you
wonder about this?
Yes, because _all_ of them leap to the conclusion that I'm
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:55:35AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
After following the thread on here on -vote, I have the impression that
this fixes something that's
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 05:46:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:19:19AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Did you talk to the stable release manager before trying to reduce his
work load?
Of course I did.
In the last four weeks?
Yes:
Feb 22nd, I mail both
Le mercredi 08 mars 2006 à 17:45 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
What discussion, exactly? There's a bunch of people telling me how I'm
blocking the process and deliberately delaying point releases, Joey's
demanding to be made an ftpmaster, and over what? A single mail that
didn't get a reply
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 05:45:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:14:21AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Uh, what the hell?
You have four people asking basically the same question, and you
wonder about this?
Yes, because
ke, 2006-03-08 kello 09:23 +0100, Marc Haber kirjoitti:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 05:46:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:19:19AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Feb 22nd, I mail both Joey (as SRM) and the security team noting the
queue changes that should
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
[+2 questions from other people]
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:39:52PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Why does it need to happen directly after r2?
[+3 questions]
Uh, what the hell?
[+2 things that might be answers]
This is why I hate trying to talk
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:38:22AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
[+2 questions from other people]
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:39:52PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Why does it need to happen directly after r2?
[+3 questions]
Uh, what the hell?
[+2 things
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not released roughly two months after
the last
Changes are currently being implemented to improve the handling of
proposed-updates, in order to have those point releases happing more
Since I'm currently running very low on time it may very well be that I
completely missed this, so could you please give me a short hint where to
find more
* Michael Meskes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060307 09:35]:
Changes are currently being implemented to improve the handling of
proposed-updates, in order to have those point releases happing more
Since I'm currently running very low on time it may very well be that I
completely missed this, so
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 17:28 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I think the first thing to note is that irregular point releases aren't
a big deal
I think they are underrated; they provide a good service to our users.
- People buy CD's or use the non-net-install images because they don't
have the
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:30:32PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 17:28 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I think the first thing to note is that irregular point releases aren't
a big deal
I think they are underrated; they provide a good service to our users.
*shrug* I didn't
Anthony Towns wrote:
which is to change the queue structure so that uploads don't enter
proposed-updates until approved by the SRM.
I'm wondering why you don't take the more obvious step: add the SRM as
an ftp-master for specifically updating stable.
I was made an ftp-master for the
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:27:56PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
These changes are all great and will help problems in the process, but
they don't help finding an ftpmaster to a) respond to mails from the
SRM, b) assign time to implement the update and c) finally do the
update. It's
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:22:30AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
*sigh*
For the record:
Feb 6th: SRM sends mail to ftp-master trying to negotiate a timeline
Mar 5th: SRM sends another mail since nobody replied to the old one
Mar 5th: aj complains that nobody answered his mail from Feb 22
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:54:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Dec 14th, 2.6.8 and 2.4.27 advisories get released, the first
kernel updates for sarge
Dec 17th, 3.1r1 gets released
Dec 20th, 3.1r1 gets announced
Jan 20th, DSA-946-1 is released for sudo, breaking the
Anthony Towns wrote:
There are, for instance, a range of outstanding RC bugs
on sudo as a result of the security release for it that need fixing,
which aiui aren't being worked on
Bdale said he would prepare a patch, that would add more documentation
and whitelist some more env vars like
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
I note that it took you 16 days to reply, and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
release 3.1r1?) and 3.1r2. May I ask why?
It seemed
* Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-07 16:10]:
Anthony Towns wrote:
There are, for instance, a range of outstanding RC bugs
on sudo as a result of the security release for it that need fixing,
which aiui aren't being worked on
Bdale said he would prepare a patch, that would
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
I note that it took you 16 days to reply, and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was
Anthony Towns wrote:
*sigh*
Full ack.
For the record:
Feb 6th: SRM sends mail to ftp-master trying to negotiate a timeline
Mar 5th: SRM sends another mail since nobody replied to the old one
Mar 5th: aj complains that nobody answered his mail from Feb 22 about
modificating
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:27PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
There are, for instance, a range of outstanding RC bugs
on sudo as a result of the security release for it that need fixing,
which aiui aren't being worked on
Bdale said he would prepare a patch, that
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:54:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Dec 14th, 2.6.8 and 2.4.27 advisories get released, the first
kernel updates for sarge
Dec 17th, 3.1r1 gets released
Dec 20th, 3.1r1 gets announced
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
I note that it took you 16 days to reply, and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
release 3.1r1?) and
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
It seemed obvious to me. If uploads to s-p-u are blocked for approval by
the SRM, this needs to happen just after a point release so that s-p-u is
empty
to start with the new system (probably because once a package is in s-p-u,
there's no easy
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:29:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Feb 6th, Joey mails indicating he'd like to release the update
at the end of Feb (27th/28th) or a little bit later at
the end of February.
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
It seemed obvious to me. If uploads to s-p-u are blocked for approval by
the SRM, this needs to happen just after a point release so that s-p-u is
empty
to start with the new system (probably because once a package is
Marc Haber wrote:
and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
release 3.1r1?) and 3.1r2. May I ask why?
The dependency is the other way -- that change needs to
There's none apart of requiring again work from ftpmasters the next time.
And since good programmers are lazy ... :-))
Now this might be a totally stupid question, but if ftpmasters are too lazy
or, more seriously, do not have the time for this additonal work, why don't
we just add more ftp
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:27:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
And that's a reason to delay a point release?
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:30:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
And what is the problem to introduce that with 3.1r3 or even 3.1r4?
(Though of course the original mail should still be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt) writes:
What would you do to make regular point releases possible?
An even more interesting question for all of the candidates is what do you
think should be included in point releases?
Point releases are currently primarily a folding-in of security
* Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-07 11:18:31]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt) writes:
What would you do to make regular point releases possible?
An even more interesting question for all of the candidates is what do you
think should be included in point releases?
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[what should be put into point releases]
Actually I discussed this with our release managers today, since
I was wondering if it would be sensible and feasable to include
more progressive (as in newer) software into stable.
It seems to be sensible and
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I personally don't think it's a huge issue if those point releases are
not 100% regular, because for the majority it's security updates, but
it's still good to have them not too far apart, esp. for those updates
that are not also already
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:18:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt) writes:
What would you do to make regular point releases possible?
An even more interesting question for all of the candidates is what do you
think should be included in point releases?
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:18:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt) writes:
What would you do to make regular point releases possible?
An even more interesting question for all of the candidates is what do you
think should be included in point
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
After following the thread on here on -vote, I have the impression that
this fixes something that's not a problem - as it doesn't reduce the
work needed to be done by the ftp-team, which seems to be the current
bottleneck.
This is why I hate trying to talk about things on Debian lists, for
reference.
/me watches in disbelief. You hate trying to talk about things on Debian
lists? Do you really think running for DPL is a good idea then?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at
[M-F-T set appropriately]
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
*shrug* I guess you've got a right to your own impression. Mine differs,
and I think I've got more to base it on than you do -- or than Joey does
for that matter. What do you want me to say?
Which if course is a valid argument if and only if you are willing to share
your insights.
Michael
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:09:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:27:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
And that's a reason to delay a point release?
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:30:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
And what is the problem to introduce that with 3.1r3 or
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:59:30PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Feb 6th, Joey mails indicating he'd like to release the update
at the end of Feb
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:53:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
After following the thread on here on -vote, I have the impression that
this fixes something that's not a problem - as it doesn't reduce the
work needed to
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:19:19AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:59:30PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Feb 6th, Joey mails indicating he'd
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
After following the thread on here on -vote, I have the impression that
this fixes something that's not a problem - as it doesn't reduce the
work needed to be done by the
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not released roughly two months after
the last
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not released
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-04 13:02:20]:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not released roughly two months after
the last update
Heya,
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not released roughly two months after
the last update (which is the official plan).
Do you know why this doesn't work
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Heya,
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not released roughly two months after
the last
57 matches
Mail list logo
