Re: A "progressive" distribution

[Ed Szynaka <szynaka@purdue.edu>]

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 02:36:47PM -0500, Ed Szynaka wrote:
> > The problem that I see is that there is too much time between stable
> > releases.  I think that shorter and much more regular time periods
> > between freezes is necessary.  By fixing the number and date of freezes,
> > with say three or four a year, and letting everyone know long in advance
> > of the freeze it would allow developers to schedule when all bugs must
> > be removed by.  Also the fact that the time period would be much shorter
> > would make changes between stable versions less drastic and therefore
> > easier to handle.
> 
> How does this account for drastic changes to something like libc that
> might take weeks or months to shake out?

Well say that there are 3 releases a year.  That gives say 3 months for
devel.  With a freeze scheduled to start at the beginning of the 4th
month and a stable release at the end of a month of freeze.  I think
that even the most drastic changes can be worked out in the course of 4
months.  Now if something _can't_ be completed in that time frame just
postpone it until the next freeze.  Since the next stable would only be
4 months off the penalty for not making it into the stable isn't that
severe.

With only the 3 months of changes I don't think that a freeze will take
as long as it has with a 6 or even 12 month devel cycle.

Ed