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: RFC: Debian Service Team



'Thomas Koenig wrote:'
>Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
>>The second point is that you seem to think that 1.3.x releases are a "good
>>thing"(tm) and should be encouraged. From my point of view it is the task
>>of QA and Testing to avoid as many minor post release versions as possible
>>by uncovering problems before the release.
>
>We're already quite a way down the release path.  If I understand
>correctly, problems found now are NOT going to be fixed unless they are
>critical to the package.  What do we do about the rest, and those which
>will be found in the future?  If we simply ignore them, we'll get the
>"unstable is better than stable" syndrome again, which is NOT a
>Good Thing.

Actually, "unstable is better than stable" is a necessary, inherent
part of the development process.  At some point during development on
"unstable" its advantages will begin to shine and its bugs will begin
to decline.  Meanwhile the developer support for the older "stable"
wanes as enthusiasm for "unstable" grows and the number of out-dated
versions in the increasingly stale "stable" grows.  Once this
hard-to-notice crossing point comes, we still shouldn't release
"unstable" as "stable" immediately because we'd like to polish it
first.

Development is a dynamic target and "stable" and "unstable" don't quite
embody all the critical concepts.  I don't see these concepts as static
states.  They point toward goals.  For me, I see the concept of
"unstable" as a caution against impatience.  The imminent release of a
new "stable" replacing the "unstable" motivates developers to give
their new packages a once-over and inspires the QA team to run more
careful tests.

-- 
Christopher J. Fearnley          |  Linux/Internet Consulting
cjf@netaxs.com                   |  Design Science Revolutionary
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf       |  Explorer in Universe
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf  |  "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .