Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)

[Hartmut Koptein <koptein@naffel.de>]

> > But we must go for shorter releases! This is very important. One or two
> > release in two years isn't ok. 
> 
> Well, I may be talking into a void, but, on the offchance.
> 
> Why must we go for shorter releases? Why is it so important? Why is a
> release once a year or so not okay?

* people reject the use of 'unstable' 
* better and newer packages (bug-fixes), not so fast outdated packages
* less dependency troubles
* support for new technics (riserfs, ...)
* continuous work, better update capability
* we reflect that debian is a mainstream distribution
* better and newer boot-floppies in shorter time (language support in four months and 
  not in 16 months)
* companies can handle debian better ( for books, cd's, PR, ...)
* new stable architectures (as powerpc and arm currently; mips and hurd for the future)
  can fix faster bad setups (boot-floppies, x11, usb, firewire, keyboards, languages, ...)
* we see a light at the end of the tunnel, have not so big goals, better quality managment,
  don't split stable and unstable so much
* i hope we start important things at the start of a new cycle and not at the end
* work on 'new things' are prefered by many peoples
* easier for test-utilities
* less bug possiblities, because of not so big package version updates
* we must not wait for the next version of gcc, libc, kernel, x11, mesa, ...
* hopefully less RCB's 


and we had a conclusion about this; i prefer two and not three releases a year (may and november). 


MfG,


   Hartmut