Re: new release process (package pool) being proposed
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 12:29:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 07:34:26PM -0200, Lalo Martins wrote:
> > I'm formally proposing the release process that we have been
> > discussing for over a year, known as ``package pool'', for
> > discussion and voting. The discussion will take place on
> > debian-project. Anyone interested should follow this.
>
> I'd like to object on three grounds.
>
> First, proposals without code are pointless. They're fun and all to
> discuss and such, but they don't get results.
Please don't stand on the way. Nobody will code it just for the
fun. That's not "fun"; we're having fun with package pools ideas
since 98. I think it's time this gets implemented. If this is
approved, I can quit my job and implement the whole stuff myself
if necessary, because I'd rather quit my job than quit Debian.
And quitting Debian is what lies on the future if we don't do
something about this sorry excuse for a release process we have.
Also, could you people please stop for a moment and really evaluate
the ammount of code needed? Get real: this is _trivial_. We
already have mail-responding code in the BTS. We already have
archive handling code in dinstall. The ugliest part is modifying
apt, and that isn't really essential.
Anyone willing to buy me a beer if I have this code ready by
Friday?
And assuming I accept the bet, how am I supposed to test it?
> Second, this isn't enough information to vote on this. We don't know how
> well we can do all this stuff until we have code, and thus any vote would
> be shockingly underinformed. Major questions include whether any of this
> would actually work, how much extra load this will put on our mirrors,
> and whether it would disgust the ftp masters so much that no one would
> bother maintaining the archive anymore.
These are not rational arguments. If you want to attack my
objectivity, please be objective.
Please make a list of the code we would need.
Please make a list of the added burdens on the ftpmasters. As
far as I calculated, they work would stay more or less the same.
Perhaps less, if we consider the difference in the freeze
processes. The real problem is the change.
The load on mirrors is the load caused by multiple versions of
each package in pool. The "working" area should be a forest of
symlinks into pool.
> Third, voting on `this is what these people will spend their time on in
> future' is completely inappropriate. If it's really a better way, they'll
> spend their time on it because they want to. If it's a bit ambiguous,
> you can spend your time on it if you want to.
No, nobody could just go and implement this radical change in
the way we work without consulting the other developers. This
would be an astounding demonstration of disrespect.
[]s,
|alo
+----
--
I am Lalo of deB-org. You will be freed.
Resistance is futile.
http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:lalo@webcom.com
pgp key in the web page
Debian GNU/Linux --- http://www.debian.org
Brazil of Darkness - http://www.webcom.com/lalo/BroDar
Reply to: