Re: Shortening release cycles
Steve Greenland wrote:
> I liked a lot of these ideas, but:
>
> On 12-Sep-99, 20:22 (CDT), Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE> wrote:
> > Our current situation results in our stable release being hopelessly
> > out-dated and the unstable release not being releaseable. That's
> > quite bad for a lot of our fellow users and developers.
>
> and then wrote:
> > No major changes are allowed to go into the distribution after two
> > months after the last release. (e.g. release on december 1st,
> > major changes are only allowed to happen until february 1st).
>
>
> If you release every six months, this leads to up to 10 months before
> a new release of a package makes it into stable. Suppose Xfree86 4.0
> is released on feb 10th. That's too late for the june 1 release (which
> froze on feb 1) so it won't be released until dec 1. People will complain.
It would be up to the release manager to get convinced about exceptions.
I'm willing to appreciate them. However, what you miss is that we are
worst than that, slink was frozen in Nov '98 or so, that's about *at least*
12 months before the next release (assuming that potato will be released
in December this year).
> (Not me, as I'm not one of those who believes anything more than a month
> old is "hopelessly outdated".)
Granted. Though, we still need testing which takes time, we also need
to give other packages time to keep up (e.g. a major perl update requires
to recompile some 50 packages or so, X is too fuzzy for me to make assumptions).
Regards,
Joey
--
The only stupid question is the unasked one.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: