[csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi James,

Am 08.02.2010 um 13:17 schrieb James Lee:
> On 07/02/10, 20:37:01, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote  
> regarding
> Re: [csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal:
>> This is one of the things which we want to fix by assigning bugs to
>> specific released so this list can be assembled automatically.
>
> Let's say there was a bug with a package that was only revealed by a
> new version of another package, the bug on the first package alone
> does not prevent the 2nd from being released.  If the 2nd package is
> kept back everything is fine and bugs are tolerable although it gets
> complex if that 2nd package supports or requires others and a new
> branch needs to be created but crucially the initial bug need not be
> blocking.  Of course the best action is to fix the initial bug but
> that's where I started.

Yes.

>>>> http://wiki.opencsw.org/releases-and-staging
>>>
>>>> I'd like to thank all the people who helped by discussing,
>>>> copy-editing and reviewing the document.
>>>
>>>> What do people think about this design?  Should we modify it?   
>>>> Should
>>>> we implement it?  Please discuss.
>>>
>>> This is roughly what has existed for several years.
>>>
>>> Name changes.  The snapshot has used its date stamp name and it  
>>> works
>>> for its purpose.  Experiment means a test or investigation planned  
>>> to
>>> provide evidence for or against a hypothesis.  What we currently
>>> called
>>> testing has release candidates and is not for proving hypotheses,
>>> therefor testing is a better name and is the currently used and  
>>> known
>>> name.
>
>> I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you propose a  
>> different
>> naming or a different process than what was described?
>
> I'm not making a proposal.

So we should stick to what we have and just drop the proposal?

>> That building
>> a catalog on testing is absolutely useless has been shown in the past
>
> Which I pointed out many times.

Ok, so we share an opinion in this point :-)

>> and the new experimental is already there. I suggest you specifically
>> point out problems in the proposal and suggest specific changes to
>> changes in the document like "I propose to change this paragraph
>> to the following words: ...". Or do you want to say we should just
>> keep the process as is?
>
> Anyone can suggest change - make it in the form of a proposal and  
> fully
> justify it.  It is for the proposer not me to say "I propose ...".  I
> can't work with wiki pages appearing and being treating as the  
> standard.

The wiki page is a proposal and you propose a change to the proposal.
So how about some discussion on the matter instead of the wording?


Best regards

   -- Dago