> Fair enough. IMO you've done quite a lot of communication on the matter
> (at least to us developers) and I've personally been testing
> CONCURRENCY=makefile in response to your repeated call for testers. At
> this point, I doubt you can get significantly more testers without
> changing the default concurrency level. All in all, it seems to be just
> a matter of *when* doing that change to gather more feedback.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should do a poll to collect
information on how testers experience their boot with
CONCURRENCY=makefile, to make it easier to switch with some confidence
that it would work for most users.
> I understand that you've considered doing it now and that you've decided
> not to (probably in accordance with the release team), which is fairly
> understandable. It is just a pity to give up the chance to actually
> understand how far are we from correct and complete dependency
> declarations. Oh well, I guess it's just life.
Well, it has not really been discussed with the release team, and the
decision depend a lot of when Squeeze freezes, so it is hard to know
what to decide.
Perhaps we should switch the default in unstable to
CONCURRENCY=makefile for a while, and if it causes a lot of problems
we can switch it back to sequential boot. At the moment I believe we
need to increase the amount of testing a lot to get the remaining bugs
located and fixed, and that is hard to do without actually doing the
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com