Re: Shortening release cycles
On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 09:18:20PM -0500, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote:
> Why do we need to follow the "traditional" development model? Think
> about this:
> When we release a new stable, we immediatly set goals for the next stable
> (FHS, PAM, etc.) Why do we need to have 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 etc?
Traditional development models are irrelevant, the problems Joey is
pointing out are real: We need goals of some sort so that we can
Specifically: the FHS transition thing was, and continues to be a policy
disaster. [We now have an agreement on what the corrected policy should
be, but the corrected policy hasn't been released yet.] I don't think
anything like this will happen in the future, but as a group this was
very bad for us.
> I propose that after 2.2 (whether it is an updated slink or a released
> potato) that future Debian GNU/Linux releases come in the form of
> "Milestones" based on what we want for Debian.
I propose that we use some trivial release engineering on policy --
we should freeze policy for a release (and thus lintian, etc.) before
we do any kind of feature freeze.