how about a real unstable?

[Andrew Lenharth <adl@cs.washington.edu>]

I know others have expressed this, but a big reason we wind up with slower
release cycles is we have a stable unstable.  i.e. unstable is rather
stable.  Most of the other distributions start with the software that will
be released by the time they release and start working with it early.

What I really mean: unstable should (as soon as work on potato is
finished), have the new perl, xfree, apache, kernel, etc.  Even if they
are still release canidates.  the sooner we have everything working with
the new packages, the sooner we can release.  For example, to wait till
perl 5.6 is out to try to integrate it could take longer that to start the
integration process with a perl release canidate.

It is the unstable branch, lets take advantage of it and make it unstable 
to start out with.  The sooner we can find problems and fix them, the
shorter our release cycles will be, and the more upto-date our main
packages will be.

Andrew Lenharth

Remember, never ask a geek "why";
           just nod your head and back away slowly... 

------------------------------

Given infinite time, 100 monkeys could type out the complete works of
Shakespeare.
Win 98 source code? Eight monkeys, five minutes.

------------------------------