On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 12:48, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > Potato has too old versions of things to be of much use on a bunch of > > the servers. They have run woody for a few months now. I have to track > > security updates myself. > > I agree with potato being way out of date for some things. I upgrade a > few things myself to deal with that. I would rather have a working > stable release than a broken one though. I agree with you here. A broken release is worse than no release. > > > I'd be very happy with a faster release schedule. The web work I admin > > for requires it. A year would be much better for a lot of people. > > I am sure people would love to do it, if anyone could come of with a way > to make it happen. Do you know how to force people to fix bugs? Should > you even consider forcing volunteers to do so? I'm hoping that all the changes made after potato will finally pay off. We'll finally have a testing built upon stable, and a lot of people (including me) continuously testing it, and submiting patches when we can. Hopefully, the number of RC bugs will remain low. We managed to get from around 500 to under 100 in a few short months; if we can keep it under 300, I think we will have a releasable distrobution in a year or so. > > That's a rather low blow. DeadPhat still does security updates for 6.2, > > for example. > Sure they do. They just don't provide them for 7.0, 7.1 or 7.2, only > 7.3. I keep getting advisories from them about my 7.0 box which I haven't gotten around to upgrading to Debian yet. I routinely see 7.1 and 7.2 in their advisories, too.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part