[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)

On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 05:41:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Anthony> Why must we go for shorter releases? Why is it so important? Why is a
> Anthony> release once a year or so not okay?
> 	Perhaps since our distribtuiotn has been variously
>  characterized as having Obsolete, Boring, and Broken flavours? I know

I contend, first, that `Boring' is unlikely to be a valid categorisation
for "testing". If I'm wrong, you definitely have a case.

And, personally, I don't have a problem with slink being obsolete. For
some things, obsolete isn't actually that bad.

>         I think we can bring our users, even those who are not
>  constantly upgrading to teh bleeding edge, a distributin that stays
>  more current without compromising technical quality.
>        Do you think I am mistaken?

No, however I think "testing" is a much better way of achieving it than
making a release every three, four or even six months.

And from another message of Manoj's:
>        Any reason why we should _not_ want faster release cycles?

Because of late we seem to be taking four or more months to do a freeze.
That leaves us, as a distribution, completely dead in the water: stable's
not being updated any more than it ever is, frozen's not getting any
new packages, and unstable's being ignored so that frozen can be fixed
up for release.

And because being able to just leave a system running and not have to
touch it for a year except to run apt-get to keep it up to date with
security patches is, IMHO, a win.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgpIWn9OZ3gP8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: