[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Some comments about the paper

|--==> "MA" == Miguel A <Arévalo <marevalo@marevalo.net>> writes:

Miguel, thanks for  having replied  me on list,  actually  my post was
intended for the list, but just missed to keep it in Cc.

  MA> El mar, 28-09-2004 a las 15:06 +0200, Free Ekanayaka escribi~:
  >>|--==> "MA" == Miguel A <Ar~valo <marevalo@marevalo.net>> writes:

  MA> at T0 + 1 year:
  MA> freeze := stable
  >>Perheps you mean free := testing ?

  MA> 	Yep, sorry.


  MA> Time based release cicle is good (this is of course my opinion) but
  MA> don't flame me on these, the scheme can be perfectly T0 + desired
  MA> features ready.
  >>Time  based  is good   for me  too,  because  with feature  based  you
  >>typically  miss releasing because  of new  feature requests. BTW GNOME
  >>has time based releasis (at least AFAIR): they decide a date and who's
  >>in is in and who's out is out.
  MA> 	Yep, I think this could be very good for Debian, so at the moment
  MA> testing becomes freeze if something is not ready, then it will be left
  MA> for the next iteration (but remains in testing).

I forgot to mention another interesting option:

DD -> unstable -> testing -> releasable

where releasable it's testing with only RC-free packages.

at some moment we either "freeze" releasable or copy  it in a separate
freeze   suite  (freeze :=  releasable), which   would  behave  as you

This way  a  reasonably stable and up   to date set  of  package would
always be  available, letting a CDD  to schedule independently its own
freezes and releases.



Reply to: