[csw-maintainers] Release process for current (was: Re: Thematics month proposal)

[Philip Brown]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:23:33PM +0000, Gary Law wrote:
>    OK, I have to say it hadn't occurred to me that I could ssh in... but I
>    can! However, as far as I can tell the file isn't there:
>    $ scp www.opencsw.org:/home/newpkgs/README .
>    scp: /home/newpkgs/README: No such file or directory

The original emailer, who wasnt me AFAIK, mistyped. If you actually log in and
look in that directory, you will see that the actual file name is
00-README or something like that. 

Bottom line is, though, most people wont care about the file anyway. They
will probably email me "why isnt my package released yet", and then *I*
will go look at the file, to remind myself and them, the reasons why their
package is still sitting in newpkgs.  I put the reminder file there
(instead of my home dir) , as an effort to be transparent to everyone about
what is going on with things. Go read it, if you're curious.



>      that is to say, automated testing is nice, but it cannot cover
>      everything that needs to be covered.
> 
>    Perhaps I'd have a better idea if you could explain what needs to be
>    covered that's not automatable?

Are you familiar with "the halting problem" in software design?
Some things are fundamentally not solvable by fully automated methods.
This is one of them.

If i could explain "everything that needs to be covered" before ever seeing
it, then not only would i be capable of designing a perfect AI, but i would
also be clairvoyant. In which case, i'd be playing the stock market, and
relaxing on a beach in the Bahamas instead of doing this :-)


>    You don't address the points concerning only having one gatekeeper on
>    releases or on the use of individual discretion in this reply.

You havent given specifics why it is a bad thing. You have basically
stated "it is bad", without saying what is actually bad about it.
In constrast, I have given explicit reasons why it is a GOOD thing
(consistency), and I have also given specific reasons why the
"phil gets run over by a bus" claim to be concerned, is invalid.
It has already been handled.

Let's not waste people's time rehashing things that have already been
solved, please?