Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Mathieu L." <lejatorn AT smgl.homelinux.net>]

Totally agreed with the loosening up to all the Leads.

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 05:41:06PM -0600, David Kowis wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> I've thought a bit about our current grimoire release process. I feel
> that we're mired down in too much process for the amount of people that
> do the actual work.  This can be evidenced by how long it's taken for
> the bugs found by prometheus to be integrated. Perhaps contributing to
> that is the somewhat convoluted bugzilla flags process. But I'm not
> bothering with that for now.
> 
> I'd like to set a goal of a monthly release cascade. Regardless of bugs,
> unless they're bugs in our critical spells. Which we'd need to define.
> Probably everything basesystem depends on.
> 
> Most people are happy with version updates, and most spells, are doing
> just fine. Id say an occasional run of prometheus against test is a good
> thing. Run prometheus on the critical spells at each release to avoid
> regressions.
> 
> Also, we need to loosen up who can make/sign the grimoire tarballs.
> Right now, I believe it's limited to two people. If they're not around,
> it won't happen. I'm proposing that any Lead Developer can be allowed to
> do the releases. If we're that uneasy about giving our Lead's the power
> to do so alone, have it require two signatures from two different Leads.
> As long as we open it up some so that we can move forward even if a few
> leads are out of the picture. Same thing goes for integrations.
> 
> Integrations should hopefully be few and far between. Especially if we
> can get a release once a month. Bugs will exist and be fixed in test,
> and in a month there will be a new stable-rc. Then in another month
> it'll be in stable. We should only have to do integrations out of cycle
> if there is a critical bug identified. At which point we should devote
> significant effort to making that happen. Same for security bugs.
> 
> Finally, a bit off topic, our grimoire verification keys are within the
> very grimoire we're attempting to verify. We've got a small chicken-egg
> problem there. Perhaps we could seperate the gpg keys into their own
> grimoire? That is the simplest solution I've come up with, but I'm not
> sure if it's the most elegant.
> 
> Thoughts? Agreements? Disagreements?
> - --
> David Kowis
> 
> ISO Team Lead - www.sourcemage.org
> SourceMage GNU/Linux
> 
> Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to
> find easier ways to do something.
>   - Robert Heinlein
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iQGVAwUBRUkwksnf+vRw63ObAQpGWQv+KQu+5Qlkihk5jTBVapIZqZkGnm/p/bZY
> ur7bNLe8R8ZH6zJ+EB9qzT7VmVIPa1aYKVHKduIFSbvQV4Xx9+uY3Mve5esA9/Il
> fHZmv0lVTSS3M1FpYbhDkVco56UbWM8fcymVKOhTS4sg5+gA1mFaaggf1Oto4/2w
> C2+5lG+j94E4ylrl93rB0cGgyh3aTVAuSe6/no/A9EMaNVSEhykHkp3yJW9UnEhX
> pXpJUx88UazTT5R6+yHE7Bk2GM1MU7Ugt12hfxKXb9jtuTaCkZ5Qb88hFtRzOv96
> ipK6DJSy3AwaHoQNX5mgAtfsqDzVBiJeHYsZlV8dXCLk4BoM2EdWRXNWBmot9DsR
> KDBvhFjMK9/pztD9UJDYuBiZdZR6tXnTiYMNF6hSVU2+CXvh+gGoF5ITXGlSDwBY
> W9i8m/Q4+X0fY06UfCK0vTU49eh3vVZ/6R2yQpJGcaC3cYS8RRpJZWJHxqBH49d8
> wPhC4zO01DaRFEoVEyO0HPSwQPpV3Xkz
> =CPcg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss

-- 
If a function be advertised to return an error code in the event of
difficulties, thou shalt check for that code, yea, even though the
checks triple the size of thy code and produce aches in thy typing
fingers, for if thou thinkest "it cannot happen to me," the gods shall
surely punish thee for thy arrogance.