Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> Note that the point of `testing' is that people who can't cope with
> packages more than a couple of months old don't even have to
> consider running `stable'.
As an off-topic plea to you: could you rename `testing'? I think of
reactions like "no, I don't want to be *testing*, I want to use it, I
prefer `stable', thankyouverymuch". `tested' would be better, for
example, and go more nicely with the adjectives `(un)stable'.
> > * hopefully less RCB's
> > * less bug possiblities, because of not so big package version updates
> Note that these aren't particularly related to how long we've spent
> actually working on the distribution.
More new stuff almost certainly means more new bugs, doesn't it?
> The slink and potato freeze times are comparable in spite of the
> huge difference in how long we spent developing them, for example.
It would be better to compare bug counts than freeze times.
> > * we reflect that debian is a mainstream distribution
> Windows is a mainstream operating system, and it releases every two or
> three years or so.
This comparison is seriously flawed. Debian is comprised of a
truckload more than just base+Xserver, which would be more like what a
naked Windows offers.
> Personally, I'd think that one interesting mainstream market for Debian
> is in user desktops, which seem to me like they'd mainly want easy mass
> installs that don't have to happen very often.
I'm quite positive that this market also wants that newest gizmo as
soon as it is available. Why else would they rush like lemmings to
sink more money to buy the newest Windows/Office/whatever incarnation?
If, say, Gimp 2K is available on the newest RedHat but not on the
newest Debian (because it is 2 years old), this *will* matter to
We need not overly concern ourselves with that, but we should be aware
of the fact.