Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
  • To: Ari Steinberg <ari.steinberg AT stanford.edu>
  • Cc: Eric Womack <eric AT lasvegasdata.com>, sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches
  • Date: 26 Jul 2002 20:44:51 -0400

A lot of what you say about the stable not being super stable, testing,
and what not has been disscussed in developer meetings. Logs are at
http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?page=DeveloperMeetingLogs . I
believe there was a discussion about just how to ensure that stable is
stable, and when a spell is ready to be migrated. I think our main
problem is we need more section maintainers in order to activly check
all spells as they are migrated.

Ryan, I think I just heard the voice of a volunteer... ;)


On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 18:19, Ari Steinberg wrote:
> my last comment (probably) on this thread...
>
> At 11:57 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, Eric Womack wrote:
> >But even to say that we will determine if a package is is stable because
> >Debian says it's stable is too much. WE need to test is and determine for
> >ourselves if something is stable.
>
> I'm still not convinced that this is actually what's happening. How much
> testing is really involved before something becomes a part of the
> test/stable branch? It seems more to me like once a version has been
> sitting around for a week or two without any complaints it's automatically
> merged into the test/stable branch. How do we know, however, that it truly
> has been tested, and that nobody actually did have a problem with it? The
> current process, if I'm not mistaken, is simply for one person (Tony) to
> deal with all of this for two branches, but I think it is too much to
> expect of him to say that he has *pro-actively* verified that two grimoires
> work perfectly. Instead, I think we simply designate things as stable in a
> reactionary way - if nobody complains then we assume, and assuming of
> course is not a good thing.
>
> I guess if the idea of relying on Debian seems bad, then at the very least
> it would seem to make a bit more sense to me for section maintainers to
> track 3 versions of each program (stable/testing/devel), so that the people
> deciding what is stable can have a little bit more focus in making this
> very difficult decision.
>
> The whole reason I started thinking about this was after reading a post
> somewhere on Slashdot about how Debian actually tracks bugs not just in
> their own tools but in all of the programs that they have packages for, and
> has admirably high standards for what is truly considered "stable". I
> think this approach makes a lot of sense, while ours seems a bit more
> misleading (if I am a sysadmin who uses a "stable" grimoire, it probably
> means that stability is crucial to me, and I'm definitely not convinced
> that this sysadmin is getting something that can truly be considered
> stable).
>
> I've already suggested getting the help of Debian, and have also suggested
> instead adding the extra job of tracking 3 version #'s to a section
> maintainer's responsibilities. My final idea is that perhaps stable should
> truly be "stable" in terms of not changing...maybe it would make sense for
> stable to be a grimoire that is intended to not be updated - just download
> the stable iso, which has verified version numbers, and don't plan to
> update until the next stable iso is released (with the possible exception
> of important security fixes), with releases happening maybe once every
> couple months. These stable iso's could even come in a multi-disc version
> with all the source for every program included on the discs (hmm - not sure
> how many discs that would end up being).
>
> Just some things to think about.
> -Ari
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>
--


Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
-----------------
PGP public key at
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&amp;search=0x92B5D3F1

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page