Questions/Ojections about FAI 2.9 upcoming release

[Michael Tautschnig]

Hi all!

[...]
> 
>     > - this release has not been announced on any mailing list before, and I
>     > don't think it's a good idea to make the IRC the premier information and
> Since most people on IRC are active working on FAI, I think it's a
> good idea to ask people (after the mail several weeks ago) what to
> care about for FAI 2.9.
Still, I'd like to have found some mail on this list that you are going to build
the package *now* (I'm not on IRC...). I'm pretty much aware of the fact that
there was no response to your request for bugfixes that should make it into the
new release, but at least you changed quite a lot...

[...]
> 
>     > - I doubt that this code has been tested enough. we had quality problems
>     > before because of releases in a hurry. 
> I can't tell I you how much I tested this version:-). I also think
> that it's not that important to have a bug free version, since we are
> not two weeks before the next Debian release. For me the most
> important improvement is, that every change to the svn repository is
> viewed by a much lager gorup of eyes. I got some mails right after a
> svn commit, when I did some stupid changes. His help much in improving
> the quality of FAI.
> 
Two notes:
- Yes, the commit-mails are great - on the one hand, many people at least can
  (and I do) review the changes and it is a lot easier to follow the development
  line by line.
- The fact that this is an upload to unstable is really important here - and we
  should try to encourage people to test these new packages; AFAIK only very few
  build packages from the current trunk, but it is a lot easier to simply fetch
  the packages from the repository...
  At first I really intended to support Hennings opinion that there has been too
  little testing, but now I'd say it is up to unstable-users to test the
  packages... 

Still, we should think about some way to record tests, i.e., who tested which
version doing what. At least it would be useful if there were some notes on
"patch xyz reviewed by..." - but I have no idea, where this should be done. The
wiki? The mailinglist? The svn?

Thanks for your effort,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.uni-koeln.de/pipermail/linux-fai-devel/attachments/20051212/5037a4ea/attachment.bin