Re: RANT: "slow" release cycles my @$$!!!! (Was: Gnome to be removed from debian?)
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:09:02 -0800, "Steve Lamb" <morpheus@rpglink.com> said:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:50:18 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> This is incorrect; Debian 2.1 will already be behind others when it
>> is released -- no kernel 2.2, no X 3.3.3, for instance.
> "Oooooo, I'm sooooo scaaarrred."
Geeze, there's no call for that.
> I don't care if the freeze is 1 year, 1 month or 1 week, we will
> always be behind on something because when you have 2000+ packages
> (am I overstating on that? 1,500 packages?)
Last I counted we have 2250 binary packages in Slink/main alone.
> *something*,
> *somewhere* is going to be released during the freeze to make it
> obsolete. X 3.3.3, so what? X looks to be running for for years
> before 3.3.3. I'm sure there is nice support in 3.3.3 but I don't
> think there is anything mission critical. Same with Kernel 2.2.
Rest of the conversation snipped.
I actually agree that our freeze is longer than it should be. I think
we should focus on shortening the freeze by having a Release Team
working at all times, not just prior to or during freeze.
I'm not overly concerned about our release cycle in general; we've
stated a goal of 6 months per cycle, everyone agrees, and we're not so
far off for the first cut.
My issue is that I'd just like to see freeze be better managed and
shorter. I think the decisions about which platforms would be
included in slink were made far too arbitrarily and far too late in
the game. We went into freeze with *no* functional slink CD image.
I applaud the debian-cd folks, esp. Steve, for their handy work. This
is not a dis to them.
I just think we should be thinking about releases throughout the whole
cycle, not just during freeze.
I hope some people volunteer for this; I'd like to see an incremental
2.1r1 release, including kernel 2.1 and maybe also the newer X11, that
and that *only* (well, and security fixes).
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: