Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:58:30AM -0700, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Marc
> Haber<email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> >> Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze
> >> again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to
> >> be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian
> >> in sync :
> >> | The LTS will be either 10.04 or 10.10 - based on the conversation that
> >> | is going on right now between Debian and Ubuntu.
> > I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
> > Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
> > hard to make it look like that.
> > In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
> > accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync
> > with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours.
> > Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay
> > asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to
> > prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to
> > Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed
> > that way.
> I don't get why do you consider 18-to-24-month release cycles a
> desirable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. Is this just to
> stay out of sync with another deb-based distro?
If we work _this_ hard to allow Ubuntu to get their LTS releases in
sync with out stable releases in a way that allows Ubuntu to get a
later KDE _and_ a later GNOME, things are running in the wrong
direction. Why continue releasing stable in the first place then? We
could freeze in December, thus missing both KDE and GNOME, and
unfreeze when Ubuntu has detached itself before their release. Nobody
would even think about using Debian stable when there is Ubuntu LTS
with more recent software _and_ commercial support by its vendor
That way, Debian would deteriorate into what OpenSUSE is for SLES and
what Fedora is for RHEL - the technical playground for the unpaid
developers who iron out the kinks from what will be the basis of the
commercial release. I don't think that this is desireable.
> We are definitely not only major supplier to any other deb-based
Yes, currently. With the new release schedule, we will be.
> and you act our end customers are really happy with not even knowing
> the date when we will freeze to our next release.
I do not think that we were too late with announcing our freezes in
the past. What we did in the past was just fine, and I was very
satisfied with the way etch and lenny were released. No need to change
the system which we _FINALLY_ got running. At least we do not need to
change if there is no advantage for us, only for our competitors.
 Assuming that KDE continues releasing Januar and July and GNOME
continues releasing March and September
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190