Brian White is correct, IMO.
We need, *for each release*, to have a list of things that need doing,
with some indication of whether they're show-stoppers or not.
Someone needs to maintain this list, and *they have to approve* the
decision to release. If any of the show-stoppers are left, or other
significant problems, then we should not release. Instead we should
bump work on the critical items up our priority queue and get them
I think that Brian is a good and competent person and I'd be happy for
him to be responsible for the important task of managing our critical
work list and deciding on releases.
Furthermore we need a codefreeze of *at least* a month where critical
components may only be changed to fix bugs, meaning that at some point
we need three distributions:
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com