The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: THOUGHT: New 'user-contributed' section?

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Craig Sanders wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 
> > 	1. Let anyone upload packages into "unstable"
> > 	2. Make the criterion for movement from unstable to "tested" based
> > 	   on the getting an OK from the testing group.
> > 
> > [...deleted...]
> > 
> > BTW, moving to this method would give "real" meaning to the names stable
> > and unstable.
> 
> it would also make 'unstable' far too dangerous to use.

Well, it would certainly be "clearer" that unstable was dangerous to use.
I don't see why it would necessarily make it more dangerous than it is
now.

> 
> many people, myself included, upgrade regularly from unstable. I do this
> for two reasons:
>  1) to keep my systems up to date, with latest bug- & security- patches. 
>  2) to test the unstable tree and report bugs to the bug system.
> 
> i can risk doing that because i have a reasonable amount of trust in the
> debian developers who are uploading to unstable.
> 
Trusting their "good intentions" doesn't make it any less possible for
us to make mistakes, even disasterous ones.

> if uploading to unstable is open to just anyone, then that trust will
> disappear.

Making the reality of the situation more clear.

> 
> what will also disappear will be the most useful aspect of debian
> - ability to quickly and easily upgrade packages. 
> 
I don't see this either. What it means is you might not have access to a
Debian package of the latest "bleeding edge" software, but that doesn't
effect either the ease of an upgrade or the speed. Maybe I'm being dense
here, but it's not on purpose...

> This will be an inconvenience for me, but it will harm debian...how many
> people are going to track unstable when there is no restriction on who
> can upload to it? if there is only a handful of people tracking/testing
> unstable, how does it get tested enough to become 'stable'?
> 
The testing group is currently at 32 active testers and I am getting from
3 to 5 new testers every day.. We have never had a testing group organized
to do this task, so we don't know yet what the limits are to the
capabilities of this group.

> The testing group can't test everything. Some bugs will only become
> apparent when a package is used for real-life purposes and/or under a
> heavy load.
> 
This is true, but what you are really saying here is that nothing is
perfect. My contention is simply that testing software is more likely to
find problems than testing people.

> I have no problem with the rest of what you say - in fact, it makes a
> lot of sense - but we should keep the current restrictions on uploading
> to unstable.

I would have no problem with a limited unstable (limited to uploads from
qualified, registered, maintainers) and an unlimited public directory
where these other packages could be placed before they are tested.

> 
> 
> In short: I'm quite happy with the fact that 'unstable' isnt. lets keep
> it that way.
> 
I think we can do this while still having a place for unrestricted public
uploads.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-