Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!
On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 11:28:46AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > *BOTH* of these reasons were used against freezing hamm and pressing on with
> > releasing slink back in June. If we kept doing that, we would release every
> > two years instead of every 6 months.
> Our problem is that the freeze time is *way* too long. What should be, and
> was designed to be, a few weeks (or a month at the most) has dragged on to
> many months. Its effect is that new software is kept out, while old bugs
> are kept in or not discovered because nobody is running it anymore, and some
> can't even compile for it anymore. People hurridly upload new packages to
> it right before the freeze date, which may cause the release to be
> postponed. This means that people get tired with the "old" frozen version
> and use unstable.
Skipping slink won't change that. aj's suggestion might, if it could be
implemented well, which it couldn't till potato.
*sigh*. We learn from history that we do not learn from history. - rcw