Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:58PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <email@example.com> writes:
> > The thing is, that if lenny will be released post-deadline, all the
> > improvements carried by it will be of no use for the 64-bit battle that
> > will have finished by late 2008.
> I don't believe that there will be a 64-bit battle in late 2008,
Does that mean you don't believe there will be such battle, or that you
don't believe the predicted date?
> Basically I would like to development on etch to take about 18 months,
> which would mean releasing in (late) 2008. I don't believe that we will
> be able to hold that date, but 21 months sounds realistic, which would
> mean releasing around my 23st birthday .
18 months means october 2008. That's probably good enough for my concern
(when I said "finished by late 2008" I meant to say "finished by the end of
2008", sorry for the thinko).
Do you really intend to release in that date? I'm not very informed about
the release process, but it seems to me there's a psychological factor here,
in which the first announced release date is intentionaly unrealistic.
> FWIW, ESR is not a good reason to move from a goal-based
> schedule to a time-based schedule.
Hey, let's not make the discussion happen all around ESR. He doesn't deserve
that. If there's a reason to do this, ESR is _not_ that reason. But he
wrote a good essay that for the most part (i.e. when you ignore the blatant
propaganda about non-free codecs) contains very interesting information.
My spam trap is firstname.lastname@example.org. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.