Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> Consider two options. If we release Jan 1st 2001, after,
Anthony> say, a four month freeze we'll have been adding new stuff
Anthony> for the three months June, July and August. As well as
Anthony> whatever people have added to woody already. So we'll get a
Anthony> bunch of new packages, a few architectural cleanups in
Anthony> various packages, and some bugs fixed.
Anthony> Suppose, alternatively, that we release six months later
Anthony> than that, ie around July 1st 2001. After a four month
Anthony> freeze, that means we get to develop new stuff from June
Anthony> through February, which gives us around nine months. ie, by
Anthony> waiting twice as long, you get three times the amount of new
Anthony> and interesting stuff added into Debian.
And that is a good thing? ;-) ;-)
Actually, I think I prefer the less stuff more often bit,
personally. (release often ...)
And unless we actually take the extra time to do high level
planning and architectural/design work, longer periods between
releases just mean more packages updated since last release, and may
mean more integration problems.
I don't think anyone i sseriously arguing that we do not have
enough packages in Debian. And it should be perfectly feasible for
each maintianer to upgrade individual packages in the interim 3
months between freezes; if not, they have too many packages and
should give some away.
So the only real argument against sorter releases is if that
would squeeze us while doing broad, low level architectural changes.
I am willing to be convinced that something like that exists.
BTW, package pools would be the obvious solution.
manoj
--
"All these black people are screwing up my democracy." Ian Smith
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: