You know, it's funny how we said at some point that it'd be nice to pass announcements by the list before posting them, and yet no one has yet to actually suggest improvements. That's ok, I'll give it a whack. I've made the edits inline, with a couple explanations following the whole text. Also sidenote: let's pick a new codename. Aaron? Since you're the boss I think this one's for you :) Also sidenote 2: do we really need to be posting the whole changelog to the front page news, or would something like this suffice? """ Hey Archers! Today's your lucky day because we're releasing a brand spanking new set of ISO's! That's right, Arch 2007.10, codenamed "Changing of the Guard", is already well on its way to the mirrors, and seeds are popping up on the torrents. Notable changes include: - More RAM usage! Go buy some new hardware! (just kidding) - Revamped to work with our new repo layout - Some other nifty stuff (check out the changelog!) Drop it like...err...get it while it's hot! Have fun! """ Enough sidenotes, here's my edited version:

Hi Arch community,

Arch Linux 2007.10, "Don't Panic" has been released. This is the first release to use our new repo layout. There are two ISOs, ftp and core.

Changelog:

GENERAL: - kernel 2.6.22.9 usage - disabled arch_addons hook by default, it is now triggered by arch-addons boot parameter RAM usage has increased, these are the new recommendations: - 256 MB (FTP-ISO,CORE-ISO arch boot image) - 96 MB (CORE-ISO lowmem boot image)

FIXES: - fixed the nasty /dev mount bug - fixed the /dev/ttyS0 errors if no serial port is installed in the system - fixed repositories in install environment to fit to both architectures - fixed km to not show broken chars after exit - fixed grub installing with xfs filesystem - fixed package clearing if setup option was chosen

NEW STUFF: - added pptpclient to install environment - added sdparm to install environment - added all free wireless drivers to install environment - added intel wireless drivers to install environment which will be activated by intel-wireless boot parameter - added hosts.deny and hosts.allow to config editing dialog - added licenses to install environment - added new lowmem boot image to core iso stripped everything out that is not necessary for installation

As usual check md5sum before using the images and also be aware of the new RAM recommendations the images have.

Have fun greetings tpowa --- end

I made the most changes to the opening, fixing sentence fragments and use of first person (this is a team effort, after all, even if not so many of us worked on the ISO itself). Random little things otherwise. I hope that's helpful, if even a little. -S

Tobias Powalowski schrieb:

Hi i moved in the 0.3 test isos to ftp/iso directory. If no real showstopper is reported till Saturday i would suggest to announce them officially, and remove the other old ISOs from ftp. Your thoughts on it?

Announcement on homepage: --- start Hi Arch community,

Arch Linux Don't Panic 2007.10 ISO release I changed everything to fit to the new core repository, 2 ISOs left ftp ISO and core ISO.

Changelog:

GENERAL: - kernel 2.6.22.9 usage - disabled arch_addons hook by default, it is now triggered by arch-addons boot parameter In order to boot and install successfully, the new RAM recommendations: - RAM usage increased to 256 MB (FTP-ISO,CORE-ISO arch boot image) - RAM usage 96 MB (CORE-ISO lowmem boot image)

FIXES: - fixed the nasty /dev mount bug - fixed the /dev/ttyS0 errors if no serial port is installed in the system - fixed repositories in install environment to fit to both architectures - fixed km to not show broken chars after exit - fixed grub installing with xfs filesystem - fixed package clearing if setup option was chosen

NEW STUFF: - added pptpclient to install environment - added sdparm to install environment - added all free wireless drivers to install environment - added intel wireless drivers to install environment which will be activated by intel-wireless boot parameter - added hosts.deny and hosts.allow to config editing dialog - added licenses to install environment - added new lowmem boot image to core iso stripped everything out that is not necessary for installation

I am clearly against releasing this Saturday. We should wait for 2.6.23 with the next release, as it is going to be there really soon. My guess is we could release 2007.10 with Linux 2.6.23 on October 13th or 20th. Releasing now and then again two weeks later will only confuse people.

Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 13:17:10 schrieb Thomas Bächler:

I am clearly against releasing this Saturday. We should wait for 2.6.23 with the next release, as it is going to be there really soon. My guess is we could release 2007.10 with Linux 2.6.23 on October 13th or 20th.

Releasing now and then again two weeks later will only confuse people.

Imho we should test this iso and release it asap. There is no technical reason to hold this back. Keep in mind that we don't have a working iso at the moment. In this case we should not wait another month for just including a newer version of the kernel. Of course, our plan was to release a new iso whenever a new kernel version is out. But I would prefer working isos than not confusing people by a lot of releases. Pierre -- archlinux.de

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:13:20PM +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 13:17:10 schrieb Thomas Bächler:

...

I am clearly against releasing this Saturday. We should wait for 2.6.23 with the next release, as it is going to be there really soon. My guess is we could release 2007.10 with Linux 2.6.23 on October 13th or 20th.

Releasing now and then again two weeks later will only confuse people.

Imho we should test this iso and release it asap. There is no technical reason to hold this back. Keep in mind that we don't have a working iso at the moment. In this case we should not wait another month for just including a newer version of the kernel.

Of course, our plan was to release a new iso whenever a new kernel version is out. But I would prefer working isos than not confusing people by a lot of releases.

I agree here. We need to get an iso out so that people can install arch again! Jason

Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

I am clearly against releasing this Saturday. We should wait for 2.6.23 with the next release, as it is going to be there really soon. My guess is we could release 2007.10 with Linux 2.6.23 on October 13th or 20th.

Releasing now and then again two weeks later will only confuse people. Mmm let me see people complain everywhere that ftp is not working atm. Old isos have all itches and bugs, which people also complain about.

i don't see a reason to delay it, i want a stable installation iso with .22 kernel. Then we have enough time for fixing issues in .23 and release a new one at the beginning of november with a new release name. I would be really happy if someone of the dev crew would test the ISOs, yet only Romashka and Ise did a short run on iso -0.1, the rest was done by forum people. I tested ftp and hd installation with all filesystems, setup and quickinst. intel wireless was reported working by one on forum, other wireless stuff is untested but should work because no bug report about it is found on bugtracker.

About new Codename, pretty late the isos are created and so are the messages created. The descission last time was a new codename on new major kernel version, so this would be .23 not .22.

That are my thoughts about it, let's vote about releasing it. +1 from me

I was not aware the most current installer had debilitating issues. Based on the ensuing conversation, I am +1 for the release now. Especially if releasing stable .22 now will keep us from rushing the .23 release out. - P

Am Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:03:57 +0200 schrieb Tobias Powalowski :

i don't see a reason to delay it, i want a stable installation iso with .22 kernel. Then we have enough time for fixing issues in .23 and release a new one at the beginning of november with a new release name.

+1 for a quick bugfix release to have a working cd out. as nobody had done the 2.6.23 preparation so far we need more time for the next kernel release iso. i see no problem when only user test the rc isos. they have usually the hardware problems and have usually more time and interest in deep testing. sry, but i'm busy with other stuff right now. Andy

Thursday 04 October 2007, Aaron Griffin wrote: | Firstly, I wasn't aware our current ISO was that broken - next | time there are issues like this, could you at least tell me (if | you don't want to email the list), so I at least am aware. speaking about broken isos. now that we changed the repository structure fundamentally... first time after the creation of arch, actually removing the old isos from the public space could be considered. they anyway are broken and would give quite some pain if somebody tries to use them. or if not removing them, we need to notify people, that their installation would not work, if they do not change pacman.conf | Thirdly, regarding the "codename" - I saw mention that it was "too | late". In the future could you tell us before "too late" comes | along? lol - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><

On 10/4/07, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

As for codename - we already had Voodoo and Don't panic! (which were pretty non-standard type of codenames) let's have Hardcore now. :-D

Oddly appropriate as it relates to the 'core' repo - I'm fine with it if other people are.

Ok, here's where the confusion lies. Let me explain the way I thought we planned on doing this, so we can see where the confusion lies. Release: YYYY.MM Bug fix: Original YYYY.MM plus -NUM New kernel: New YYYY.MM So, if this is a bug fix release for the 2007.09 ISO, I was under the assumption the date would remain 2007.09. I thought we had planned to only change the date when the kernel changes. In which case, the "codename" would change. Here the date has changed. So I am assuming the codename should. Am I the one that is confused or is it the other way around?

Tobias Powalowski wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 schrieb Aaron Griffin:

...

Ok, here's where the confusion lies.

Let me explain the way I thought we planned on doing this, so we can see where the confusion lies.

Release: YYYY.MM Bug fix: Original YYYY.MM plus -NUM New kernel: New YYYY.MM

So, if this is a bug fix release for the 2007.09 ISO, I was under the assumption the date would remain 2007.09. I thought we had planned to only change the date when the kernel changes. In which case, the "codename" would change.

Here the date has changed. So I am assuming the codename should.

Am I the one that is confused or is it the other way around?

_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

There is no new kernel on it since 2007.08 it is still .22 series so it would make sense to call it 2007.08-2

That's fine, though maybe we should consider calling it 2.6.22-2. If our releases are actually pegged to kernel releases, then why not say what we mean? Saying 2007.08 for a release made in 2007.10 is misleading. That said, I don't care that much. There's *way* too much going on right now in Arch land to spend time painting bikesheds! - P