Am 06.08.2004 um 08:45 schrieb Serge Stinckwich:
>
> We already talk offline about the use of a BTS like Mantis with some 
> of you. Can we try to make an experiment for example to manage the 
> bugs in the stable 3.7 ? My vision is to have something like the way 
> the linux kernel dev work : a very conservative stable version with a 
> frozen API and only bug fixes, and an unstable version managed with 
> the BFAV process.

> Maybe, we can also have a maintainer for the stable version like 
> Marcelo Tosatti is the Linux kernel 2.4 maintainer. We could have 
> several stable release (3.7.1, 3.7.2, ...) at fixed time, for example 
> every two or three months.
>

Yes, bugfixes for the stable version would be nice. I think we should 
try that. Of course, we would need somebody who steps
forward as a maintainer.

But for mantis: I'd like to move all bugs over, even those from 3.8 and 
the old ones that are in BFAV.

Am 05.08.2004 um 21:44 schrieb Michael Rueger:

> Back in the SqC days we had an internal and an external update stream.
> The internal one was pretty much unfiltered, living dangerous etc. 
> EVeryone living on that stream was used to having backups of their 
> image, ready to go back at any time. Then, when updates seemed ok for 
> a while, they were transfered to the external stream. This way it was 
> easy to retract updates, as they hadn't reached "everyone" yet, but 
> only people who knew how to, and were actually willing to, roll back 
> the changes.
>
> Re-establishing that separation might help speeding up the harvesting 
> process as it would spread the actual testing of an update across all 
> internal stream users.
> Maybe naming these streams differently could help with acceptance ;-)
>

Yes, we should try that. This would work nicely together with Hernán's 
suggestion of non-checked submissions by
"trusted" developers:

> I agree with you about the danger of a faulty update, but... What about
> using this optimistic approach but restricted only to trusted
> developers. That is to Ned, Andreas, Tim and all the ones that in this
> list are considered as experts?
>

So taken together the new way for managing development would be:

- we have an unstable stream of updates
- all "trusted" developers stuff will be added there, the changes will 
be made "official"
    after some testing.
- bugfix releases of the stable version all 3 month
- Managing of Bugs via mantis
- BFAV process for community submissions (all trusted dev. are able to 
approve)

> Oh btw, wouldn't Monticello help us if instead of submitting changesets
> we submitted mcz files? I mean for going back a version or two if
> something went wrong with an update.
>
Yes, we should move away from changesets and use Monticello.

> Well, that were my two cents. Please treat me kindly. I am afraid of
> posting under this topic :)

No need to, realy!

     marcus