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

[Michael Schwendt]

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.

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

Instead you get up to seven month without a bug report, probably because
the package works fine, and then during the test releases when all the
fans of stable releases don't participate, you rebuild something just for
fun, creating a new testing-target.

> > 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?
 
> > 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

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.