Re: Release team for etch?
Il giorno ven, 10-06-2005 alle 18:58 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG ha
> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:14:02PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> >> also sprach Steve Langasek <email@example.com> [2005.06.10.2300 +0200]:
> >> > Currently, I am planning to stick around for etch. If we're still waiting
> >> > for etch two years from now, it's hard to predict how I'll feel at that
> >> > point. :)
> >> QUICK, ALL: this should be enough of a reason to get etch out in
> >> a year!
> > ... which as I've said repeatedly, I have no intention of trying to do.
> Why not? The following seems like a reasonable plan to me:
> By the end of June, decide the release criteria.
> By the end of September, have the GCC changes in place and other
> infrastructural changes that we know we expect. Have filed bug
> reports on whatever new RC issues will need to be fixed for etch.
> (Such as the GCC change, and whatever else.)
Why do you want a new release without other new important packages like,
just to make an example, X.org?
There are a lot of new large packages that needs a *lot* of testing
before being releaseable. I think a one year release is really
impossibile, while a two years release seems reasonable to me.