[csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal

[James Lee]

On 08/02/10, 12:42:36, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote regarding
Re: [csw-maintainers] RFD: Releases and staging proposal:

> >> 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?

Don't ask me, I'm not making a proposal.  Discuss options and merits,
suggest changes in form of a proposal, adopt if approved.  Individuals
may vote with feet if not acceptable.


> >> 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?

You've already put release candidate packages under experimental, so is
it just a proposal?   Ref also:
http://wiki.opencsw.org/automated-release-process
no mention of proposition status.

The wording defines the matter so is inseparable - it's a written
proposal.  I've already question the naming and that there isn't much
materially different to what has happened, at least there is not
sufficient detail such that I can tell what distinguishes the proposal,
perhaps it could explain?  i.e. make incremental on previous.

6 month cycles make releases harder because it's harder to hold stuff
back the longer the gap is.  This situation afflicts us now having to
accommodate a period of great change and innovation.  Only regularly
updated packages occur in every cycle and these tend not to be the
problematic ones anyway.




James.