Re: FREEZE RESCHEDULED
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 02:34:52PM -0800, Kevin Dalley wrote:
> Florian Lohoff <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Freeze has some predepends - Working boot-floppies which do not exist
> > and a base stability. Then - Freeze - Force people to work on frozen
> > and release within 4-6 Weeks.
> The base stability happens after the freeze, not before, except for a
> few minutes her and there. As long as unstable packages can be
-> Bug squashing day ...
> For the few packages where it matters, a user can download a new
> version from unstable. It is bad to have the entire distribution be a
> year old. I have tried converting a few people to Debian. One concern
> they have is that the kernel is 2.0.x in stable. While I don't think
> that this is a critical issue, it gives an impression of being behind
> the Linux curve.
Right - So shorten the freeze time - Otherwise we will end up the same
with slink - Shortening the freeze phase means that most of the work
should have been done before freeze - Like boot-floppies etc ...
> Let's freeze soon, continue working on boot-floppies, continue fixing
> critical bugs in frozen, and continue to upload the new bugs to
> unstable, where they belong.
But opening frozen AND unstable will let maintainers just continue
as they are doing right now - Not very much careing on the stability
concerning new packages/version. I personally wouldnt like
to see frozen and unstable in parallel.
I would prefer maintainers working on the stability bringing down bugs
to 0 on their packages and hold back new versions for 4-6 weeks and
then release ....
Florian Lohoff email@example.com +49-5241-470566
... The failure can be random; however, when it does occur, it is
catastrophic and is repeatable ... Cisco Field Notice