| 1 |
On 11/29/06, Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> The 3-4 weeks of releng filing a ton of "doesn't build with gcc-4.1.1" bugs |
| 3 |
> wasn't a big enough clue? :) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
No. We get those all the time; there's always someone trying out an |
| 6 |
unsupported release of gcc. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Also, the arch teams (or at least the arch's |
| 9 |
> release coordinator...if they didn't tell the rest of their team, that's not |
| 10 |
> releng's fault) that were moving to it and people in base-system working on it |
| 11 |
> were "in the know". |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
What about everyone else, who isn't part of an arch team? Sorry, but |
| 14 |
I just don't get how you expected us to know it was coming, when you |
| 15 |
didn't announce it, and you don't even feel that an announcement was |
| 16 |
your (releng's) responsibility (even though stabilisation of gcc-4.1 |
| 17 |
was for you). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You personally went out of your way earlier this year to critisise me |
| 20 |
about bad communication, just for announcing that work had started on |
| 21 |
something in Gentoo. And yet here you are today, somehow expecting |
| 22 |
the rest of us to rely on clairvoyance to know in advance about a |
| 23 |
change that your team pushed onto the entire tree. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's a great illustration why the releng snapshots, as things stand |
| 26 |
today, aren't the right way to deliver a meaningfully stable tree to |
| 27 |
our users. It's simply difficult to trust you with the way you choose |
| 28 |
to behave today. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Yes, that's part of wolf31o2's idea. The tree would be "non-moving" except for |
| 31 |
> GLSA's and any dependencies required by the updated version of the |
| 32 |
> security-affected package. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
How are you going to ensure that all the security fixes that never get |
| 35 |
a GLSA get into the tree? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> A slower-moving (or "non-moving" with security updates) tree is perfect for me, |
| 38 |
> and I'm sure for many other people as well. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Before you release these trees to users, I trust you'll be doing the |
| 41 |
responsible thing, and ensuring that upgrades from one tree to the |
| 42 |
next work? You can't take that for granted; package maintainers |
| 43 |
cannot be relied upon to test upgrades spanning that length of time. |
| 44 |
(Which is why upgrade early, upgrade often is a practical way to |
| 45 |
manage Gentoo boxes) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Best regards, |
| 48 |
Stu |
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives