use disttag ".1" for devel to avoid confusion (was: Re: Plan for tomorrow's (20070604) Release Engineering meeting)

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:06:37PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 21:33:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > > The picture of when exactly the mass-rebuild would happen and how
> > > much the the maintainers would be involved, is way too
> > > blurred. Talking about QA and lots of automated tests, we're not
> > > there yet.
> > 
> > Right, so let's not test at all then. Close our eyes and ship a
> > product that has build stamps from over a period of seven months all
> > over. So pray instead of test?
> 
> "It (re)builds, let's ship it, we need not test it" is an equally
> short-sighted strategy.

which is not what I suggested, I explicitely said that there is more
time needed to test between the freeze and the GA.

> A period of seven months? Seven months without a bug report? Seven months
> without the maintainer using his own package? Sounds good.

So you assume all 500 packagers run a bleeding edge rawhide on a daily
basis?  That's far from being the case. I don't for one, do you?

> > > How do a devel cycle and a test period fit into this? If we test
> > > previously built packages on the road to a final product
> > 
> > ... like for example 7 months ago, e.g. on FC6 ...
> 
> Don't generalise.
> How compatible are our distribution releases with eachother?
> Why rebuild ABI-compatible components?

Fedora is not known about keeping ABI compatiblity for a long time, in
fact not caring about legacy is part of Fedora's definition and
flexibility.

> > > that we want to ship, why do we rebuild packages although nothing
> > > wrong has been found with the binaries?
> > 
> > Sure, let's ship the binaries and have the users find out.
> 
> No testing? No QA? Is your mass-rebuild the only form of "testing"? =:-O

No, not at all. But put the QA at the end of the development cycle,
not spreading from FC6 to F7.

> Anyway, I try to end this thread here.
> 
> If we somehow try to prepare binaries right in time before test1 in
> accordance with a clear roadmap, I'm fine with that. I still would like to
> see maintainers be the ones to touch packages if they need to be touched
> and not just for rebuild-fun.

I think I'll start assigning all bugs that show up due to missing
rebuilds to Michael. :)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070604/d5d1836d/attachment.sig>