• Updates to the trixie freeze policy

    From Sebastian Ramacher@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 2 18:40:02 2024
    Dear toolchain, debian-installer, and image maintainers,

    We, as the release team, are aware that we are late with the
    announcement of the freeze timeline for trixie. After some internal
    discussions on how we want to handle the freeze for trixie based on the
    lessons learnt from the bookworm release, we like to get your feedback
    on our changes listed below before we announce the freeze schedule.

    During the bookworm release we made the following observations:
    * motivation and engagement of maintainers drop as the freeze becomes
    longer
    * the work on d-i and images takes time and requires a non-moving set of
    packages to work on

    To reduce the time that maintainers of packages not contained in the
    build essential / toolchain set or packages that are somewhat relevant
    for d-i are affected by the freeze, we hope to keep their engagement up
    by delaying the transition and soft freeze, but freezing relevant
    packages instead. We would like to get input from debian-boot to define
    the relevant criteria so that the freeze is useful for them. We would
    start with the following set

    packages producing udebs
    packages involved in a minimal debootstrap

    In the following discussion we will simply call them "udeb producing
    packages" but better wording is more then welcome.

    We thus propose the following timeline:

    Milestone 1: Toolchain and d-i freeze

    As in bookworm, we start with the freeze of toolchain with the goal to stabilize build essential packages and compilers and interpreters of
    major ecosystems (Python, Ruby, Rust, Golang, Haskell, Vala, LLVM). The
    list of packages that is involved can be found at [1].

    In trixie we will also freeze all packages that produce udebs with the
    intent to stabilize the relevant packages for debian-installer and
    debian-boot. Changes to these packages need to be coordinated with the respective teams. Effectively, this means that any change to a package producing udebs will require an unblock request with an explicit ACK
    from d-i to migrate and we also won't be doing any transitions of udeb producing packages.

    udeb producing packages maintained by debian-boot and debian-cd are
    exempt from these rules to facilitate their work. Updates to these
    packages should be prepared at their maintainers' discretion and are
    expected to benefit the development of the installer.

    Milestone 2 (Milestone 1 + 2 months): Transition freeze

    At this point we stop starting transitions.

    Milestone 3 (Milestone 2 + 1 month): Soft freeze

    As with bookworm, with the soft freeze only small and targeted fixed are appropriate. Also, packages not in testing are blocked from migration to testing.

    Milestone 4 (Milestone 3 + 1 month): Hard freeze

    Key packages and packages without autopkgtest will be treated as in the
    full freeze and require manual review by the release team.

    Milestone 5 (Milestone 4 + ? months): Full freeze

    This is the last phase of the release where all packages require manual
    review by the release team. Updates that are allowed to migrate to
    testing are reduced to: targeted RC bug fixes, targeted bug fixes for
    important bugs if done via unstable, translation and documentation
    updates if done via unstable, updates of packages relevant for the
    release process.


    We are happy to receive your feedback - especially on the change
    regarding d-i. The proposed text for the freeze policy can be found in
    the following merge request on salsa:

    https://salsa.debian.org/release-team/release.debian.org/-/merge_requests/27

    Best
    Sebastian for the release team

    [1] https://release.debian.org/testing/essential-and-build-essential.txt
    which we intend to extend with all llvm-toolchain versions that are
    planned to be included in the trixie release.
    --
    Sebastian Ramacher

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cyril Brulebois@21:1/5 to you've entirely ignored what I on Sat Nov 2 19:40:01 2024
    Hi,

    Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> (2024-11-02):
    Dear toolchain, debian-installer, and image maintainers,

    We, as the release team, are aware that we are late with the
    announcement of the freeze timeline for trixie. After some internal discussions on how we want to handle the freeze for trixie based on
    the lessons learnt from the bookworm release, we like to get your
    feedback on our changes listed below before we announce the freeze
    schedule.

    It looks to me “how to avoid burning out coworkers” didn't make it into “lessons learnt”.

    During the bookworm release we made the following observations:
    […]
    * the work on d-i and images takes time and requires a non-moving set
    of packages to work on

    The last part is not true, and has never been true in the 12+ years I've
    been involved.

    We thus propose the following timeline:

    Milestone 1: Toolchain and d-i freeze

    As in bookworm, we start with the freeze of toolchain with the goal to stabilize build essential packages and compilers and interpreters of
    major ecosystems (Python, Ruby, Rust, Golang, Haskell, Vala, LLVM). The
    list of packages that is involved can be found at [1].

    In trixie we will also freeze all packages that produce udebs with the
    intent to stabilize the relevant packages for debian-installer and debian-boot. Changes to these packages need to be coordinated with the respective teams. Effectively, this means that any change to a package producing udebs will require an unblock request with an explicit ACK
    from d-i to migrate and we also won't be doing any transitions of udeb producing packages.

    It looks to me that's going to put more pressure on us, on me, in a
    continuous fashion, during the entire freeze. It really looks like
    you've entirely ignored what I wrote to the team about burnout.

    udeb producing packages maintained by debian-boot and debian-cd are
    exempt from these rules to facilitate their work. Updates to these
    packages should be prepared at their maintainers' discretion and are
    expected to benefit the development of the installer.

    That's always been the case. Thank you for not taking *that* away, I
    guess?

    We are happy to receive your feedback - especially on the change
    regarding d-i. The proposed text for the freeze policy can be found in
    the following merge request on salsa:

    https://salsa.debian.org/release-team/release.debian.org/-/merge_requests/27

    My favorite course of action is *not* changing anything regarding d-i
    (except the fingerpointing I received afterwards, that I really would
    have loved to avoid).


    Cheers,
    --
    Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
    D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmcmcWAACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSCjgxAAnGuYWdwdJZ1Sv1FAPyN1l3tNcja4ms1srblWi+YQUf6qBMtqcPmd8Rww U3MnKHvQlWUGA3RPgAzhdRIkvq76I0P1MCgy8P1C4gUvgIUyuMWabLoU6oFaA0jR HR4TRUkMWXQrfIy6B3igAAituvWP0mMMIdoX9jll2tu05yazkkCswLteO8R9sSOH hVEZnPeRjGwhRz4ow73IA1DhHo2Dby99rqzZENnmkg36n/mvAzlpdMG7aOzmjLK2 IpuYngZOLR5X38dSjlHnv+rRnq3XKRB8bGDgM4J/miFj/3OL4Ca/hrMbScuHs/wq tLGoW+JxPb9HEBjd0VQdjtz9z3KH9lKJJG9L+1OJdKTXWrSJcq0lDi+g0sMG5WW3 y66SlwD6a+eC6iSATswvYFySu4PAnu57P354rakE2g68ASRHXlFhn3oyPTkO6f36 K/CvzbcGO+lQh/bsKUFDpOMfJh8pGcvCw/PVaUnNdHmkH9ATaaurw3dnMrkfBwDk wnP8UuuH19n/pbmsRlarxC5td149rKkbA9gEkdE1WQ9DXUWKwZ+TQJVKYxZYe6MH JkQCeEBhXDtGJ/uuKO/ahUv+ecTFShZv010dHKIG83bCmZN9VNEGk/AosFA9XbuP hH737qnUqEuJyhVND4w5516jOqREKhNWwyMcpIz5Ht7vmTI0V1s=
    =/W1e
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    *