Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:36:07PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 01/05/11 at 22:17 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 09:35:07PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > [ Note that my position is based on the assumption that we have a
> > > share of DDs interested in rolling similar to the share of DDs
> > > interested in stable releases. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to
> > > know where we stand regarding this. ]
> >
> > I'm assuming that releasing is what Debian is about (and fwiw if you
> > read Raphael's proposal, it's for him too), meaning that rolling is a
> > second class citizen here.
>
> Well, I disagree. I believe that Debian is about building an operating
> system. Whether we deliver it through stable releases, or through a
> rolling release, or both, is an implementation detail.
Yes, I pushed the thinking up to the point that I /also/ (I never said
/only/) want to run Debian on servers and that a Stable release is the
sole thing I'd like to run on them.
[...]
> > There are other distros out-there that do rolling release only (gentoo,
> > arch), note how none of them also do stable releases (I think gentoo
> > used to tag their repository every now and then, but that doesn't make
> > them releases, please, at least not in the Debian sense).
>
> I don't follow your reasoning.
> - I don't think that we should restrict Debian to servers managed by
> serious sysadmins.
> - Gentoo & Arch don't do stable releases, OK. Why would it mean that we
> couldn't do it?
It's not a reasoning, I'm saying, I'm fine if Debian doesn't do rolling
releases and to point people towards them. I just note that non of the
rolling-released distro do no stable releases, something that tends to
comfort my opinion that rolling and stable releases are somehow
incompatible.
> It's clear that we are not going to stop doing stable releases anytime
> soon. However, there seem to be some interest in the "rolling release"
> concept. The question is: can we (Debian) provide a rolling release
> with an acceptable increase in workload, and without compromizing the
> quality of our stable releases ? If yes, why shouldn't we do it?
Well, if you hadn't guess, I think it will increase workload and worse
divert attention from what I think is a more important goal.
But really what I'd like to see is numbers and compelling reasons to
start all that CUT/rolling thing, because that's missing completely from
the thread, I'm still not understanding why we need anything like that.
You don't do something like that because it's hype, you do it because
it's badly needed, and well, why?
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Reply to: