Re: Roadmap to Lenny: news release draft.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Steffen Moeller wrote:
Hier Charles, a great initiative of yours!
Yep. Really great effort while I was laying at some random beaches of
Sardinia. ;-))
<p>
We are proud to announce the release of Debian Med 1.0 together with the new
stable version of the Debian operating system, "Lenny".
</p>
I don't like the 1.0 so much. How about: "We are proud to announce the first release of
Debian-Med together with "Lenny", the new stable version of the Debian operating system."
I agree with Steffen. While the meta packages are featuring version number
1.0 I do not realy like to give Debian Med itself some version number. The
meta packages itself need version numbers and the 1.0 verison should stress
the fact that they are leaving the beta state which sounds reasonable because
I do not see any technical problem with these. But it is hard to find a
reasonable version for Debian Med. You can argue that it should have the
same like Debian release itself (5.0) or you can try to reflect the usefulness
for general medical care (probably somewhere around 0.1 or so). We might
think about some versioning once we provide some installable media or so
which needs some distinct version - but before this status is reached I think
we just leave out versioning.
<p>
The <a href="http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med/";>Debian-Med</a> project
continues its exponential growth and again doubled the number of packages it
<a
href="http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org";>maintains</a>
since the release of etch. .. ? The doubled lacks a point of reference.
Well, I think if you are measuring the number of packages it might come
close to the double of packages and I think we are twice as much people
working on Debian Med. But I have some problems to use only those numbers
to find a measure for the growth. The fact that we are able to add so
many packages is somehow connected to the fact that formerly so many were
missing. I would not consider it a bad sign if we do not reach a doubling
of these numbers for Lenny+1 - and if we lose the feature of "exponential"
growth. So I would rather vote for a qualitative measure in the form of
... continues its very successful work / "healthy growth" [1] which
is reflected in a continuos increase of packages for medical care (which
can be back upped by
http://people.debian.org/~tille/talks/200808_med/dmstats1.pdf )
and an increasing number of people who are actively working on the
project (which also can be backed up
http://people.debian.org/~tille/talks/200808_med/authorstat_med.pdf )
BTW, if we want to use these graphs we should find better locations than
in my private talks archive - these URLs are perhaps subject to change.
In addition, the already existing packages were reviewed and updated. Our
"In addition, all software packaged before was ..."-- uh, that does not sound much good either
... I'm no native English speaker - the sense is clear and should be
stressed somehow.
Unfortunately I'm unable to do a thorough review but so far for my comments.
Many thanks for working on this
Andreas.
[1] http://people.debian.org/~tille/talks/200808_med/
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: