[Mageia-dev] Opening backports (was Re: [Mageia-sysadm] Using SQL database for youri)

Sat Oct 1 00:05:37 CEST 2011

Op vrijdag 30 september 2011 23:35:40 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
+> Le jeudi 29 septembre 2011 21:10:42, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
+> > Le jeudi 29 septembre 2011 20:55:43, Florian Hubold a écrit :
+> > > Am 29.09.2011 14:13, schrieb Olav Vitters:
+> > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:24:56AM +0200, Samuel Verschelde wrote:
+> > > >> backports_testing, but it means that we would lose the current
+> > > >> checking that updates come from the 1/updates branch)
+> > > > 
+> > > > Long term I prefer more checks because I do make mistakes. But maybe
+> > > > lax as a temporary ("a few weeks") solution until it uses the SQL
+> > > > database?
+> > > 
+> > > Well, is it really that necessary for a matter of some weeks to speed
+> > > up backports opening? Shouldn't we care first that sustainability of
+> > > Mageia is ensured first?
+> > > 
+> > > It's not like backports candidates will lessen workload on QA, rather
+> > > the opposite. That's my personal opinion.
+> > 
+> > Some genuine user needs can only be covered by backports per our policy,
+> > I don't see why we should wait more (already 4 months since the release
+> > of Mageia 1). QA team already said it's ready to test backports, and if
+> > we have difficulty we simply will find means to get more testers. Also,
+> > updates will still remain the priority.
+> > 
+> > Opening backports media does not mean that we will start backporting
+> > everything. But a policy has been chosen, after a loooooooooong debate,
+> > and there seems to be a simple way to open those media to package
+> > submitting.
+> > 
+> > Also, the sooner we have backports, the less there will be external
+> > third- party repos with all the problems (upgrade, support) that causes.
+> > There already are, don't let them too much space and rather invite their
+> > packagers to backport *inside* (as long as they stay within the policy
+> > of course).
+> > 
+> > About Mageia's sustainability, we already are working to that (QA team is
+> > operational, package adoption campaign is undergoing...), and having
+> > backports media won't prevent us from continuing.
+> > 
+> > Also, the "few weeks" is a really vague estimation, my guess is it risks
+> > to be rather months because sysadmins seem to have a big TODO list a
+> > little resources. That's why I'm proposing 2 "technically simple" ways
+> > to move forward.
+> > 
+> > Best regards
+> > 
+> > Samuel Verschelde
+> 
+> If needed, the tremendous amount of packages in Blogdrake's 3rd party media
+> shows how much backports are needed by users, whatever we as packagers can
+> think of it.
+> 
+> I'm still convinced that opening backports right now, using one of my 2
+> proposals (if I haven't overlooked a technical difficulty), would be an
+> important step forward for us.
+> 
+> Best regards
+> 
+> Samuel
+
+I have to agree, if opening backports brings in more packagers who are likely 
+to integrate well AND bring in more users AND likely would step up and 
+maintain similar packages, we should help their effort and not get our 
+community too splintered, even though updates _is_ more important than 
+backports.
+