[RFC] Proposal to change the structure of the website view/download areas and handling of "testing" releases
Kevin P. Fleming
kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon May 17 10:06:15 PDT 2004
Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> I understand your concerns, but in practice it has always worked well in
> our previous development model. We can let it run this way for some
> time, see if it still works out; I'll tweak the labels on the website to
> reflect that they are daily renderings.
OK, I think that's a reasonable course of action. If significant
problems occur because of it then it can be left that way indefinitely.
> If you don't want to run the risk, I propose to remove the testing &
> unstable download & read links from the website so they are only
> available by reading development.html. This is basically your earlier
> proposal to make the location "unavailable" to the LFS community.
> Developers & interested users can still use the daily rendering, while
> more innocent users who heed the warnings of labels marked "testing" and
> "unstable" are protected.
No, I don't think that will be necessary. Really I'm just trying to
ensure that we can minimize the amount of time that "testing" requires
to move to "stable". In the past it's been (apparently) quite difficult
to get enough solid test reports from the _identical_ build instructions
for the editors to feel that they could move on... witness the recent
glibc tarball upgrade just before 5.1 was released: the reports on
lfs-dev were all over the place (good, bad, bad on certain platforms,
unsure) and some of that appeared to be because the reporters were not
following the identical steps to do their builds. In my mind these
reports only serve to delay the testing process, because they makes the
editors concerned that there are problems, when those problems are not
actually present. Moving to a model where people are testing only "dated
testing snapshots" seemed (to me) to be an ideal way to ensure that
people could test a known quantity and be able to report _exactly_ what
build instructions they tested against.
With all that said though, if we do start to create "dated testing
snapshots", render them and put up news items about them, then people
can still do most of what I was hoping for. We just need to get someone
(Matt?) to decide if this is the right policy to follow for the next
round of testing and decree that :-)
More information about the lfs-dev