On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 06:55:20AM -0600, Jim wrote: > > ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk said: > > We must decouple our development tracks much more. I propose that we > > resolve never again to plan a release with is not fully backward > > compatible with the current stable version. > > I like this idea most of the time... but there are times when you just have to > make a clean break. Going between libc versions was one of those times, as was > going from a.out to elf. Otherwise, what are major number changes for? > > Are you unhappy with the result (hamm)? I'm not... I don't think its the result he - and many others - is/are unhappy with. Instead it's they way we're unhappy about. Many developers, users and vendors know about Debian, its stability, it's goals etc. However for nearly one year we try to release hamm as Debian GNU/Linux 2.0. Many people are waiting for it. How far are we? This is the problem. Our goals apparently were too high. Although I think they're good but we should re-ratify them from time to time. I for one think it's good that hamm is fully libc6 but we could have achieved this at least half a year ago if a) the bo -> hamm upgrade would be easier and b) we won't have the 300-cathedral-situation and would have more nmu's instead. Also: distribution-release critical bugs are not a matter of _one_ maintainer but the whole group, anybody who could afford the time and has enough skills to do so should try to fixe em. I also agree that we should try to avoid distribution-release critical bugs but have package-release critical bugs. If the bugs are not resolved, skip the packge for this release. Period. Either its maintained and gets fixed or it is not. Then we could skip it. Period. For distribution-release critical bugs an experts group could help. Regards, Joey -- / Martin Schulze * joey@infodrom.north.de * 26129 Oldenburg / / http://home.pages.de/~joey/ / The only stupid question is the unasked one /
Attachment:
pgplARCcduhds.pgp
Description: PGP signature