Re: Debian-related advertising on debian-announce
On 4 Feb 1998 bruce@va.debian.org wrote:
> Take offense if you want. I took tremendous flack on your behalf with
> zero support from you since your project was secret. Want me to take
"tremendous" and "zero" seem to be an extreme statement from my POV.
> responsibility for my decisions? OK - I am responsible for them, and
> freezing the official CD was something I promised to do for a few months,
> and it was a mistake.
If, in fact, you made the decision "on my behalf" then it was definately a
mistake. I supported the position of longer lived "stable" because I
thought it would be good for the "commercialization" of Debian. It
certainly didn't improve my "custom" CD business.
If you honestly consider your decision to be based on what was good for
Dale Scheetz, rather than what was good for Debian, then you are correct,
it was a big mistake. That certainly wasn't the reason that I supported
the concept.
>
> Does your message mean you don't mind if we rev the official CDs now?
> I think the numbering should stay the same but the official CD should
> track the revisions rather than being incarnate for 6 months.
>
My intentions are to get the best distribution we can into the hands of
all those folks who will benefit from its use. From a commercial
standpoint having a new "Official" CD every few weeks isn't going to do
that.
Personally, I saw no difference between making "point" releases and the
"revision" numbering scheme that was finally arrived at. I don't care what
you name it or how you number it, I just want a complete system that works
as expected. How the accounting is done is not germain to my needs (even
as an author).
Although I know that there is resistance to it in some quarters, it seems
to me that we need a "stable release" that doesn't change and can always
be returned to. Along side that we need a different location in the
archive for all of the packages that are released to fix specific problems
found in the stable release. These additional "releases" should be done in
a fashion that will allow them to be "backed out of" when the "new"
package is more broken than the "old" one. We had something almost like
this with rex and rex-fixed, but Guy seems not to like the task of
managing the symlinks. (not that I blame him) With bo we sort of shoved
the packages that passed the testing criterion into bo, thus removing the
older package from the archive and making 1.3 unavailable forever after.
It was these issues that I saw as being the cause of much of the "flack"
that came down as a result of the implimentation of the release number
changes.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: