Re: Beta1 missing decisions and possible timeline
* dann frazier <email@example.com> [2008-02-05 01:13]:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 05:23:14PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > As suggested by Frans, with many good points, we'll release with
> > 2.6.22 but just after it, we'll start to work to release another beta
> > with 2.6.24 kernel.
> This should allow us to install a etchnhalf 2.6.24 on hardware supported
> by 2.6.22, and then the follow-on beta would add support for the
> remaining hardware (that supported by 2.6.24 but not 2.6.22). Unless
> someone sees a problem with this, it seems fine to me.
I think it's a good idea to do beta releases more regularly and it
definitely makes sense to base the next beta on the 2.6.24 release
which will also be used for etchnhalf. At the same time, I'm a bit
unhappy because 2.6.25 will finally have support for the Orion (ARM)
platform which I'd like to support in d-i soon, and putting out a beta
based on 2.6.24 will delay Orion support quite a bit.
Given we're doing a beta based on 2.6.22 now, how quickly could we get
another beta based on 2.6.24 out? Can you be done relatively quickly
after the beta based on 2.6.22?
Another solution would be to backport Orion support from 2.6.25 to