Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)
Mike Bilow <mikebw@colossus.bilow.com> writes:
> The key, I think, is to let everyone know well in advance what to
> expect. "It's ready when it's ready" is not working. I would suggest
> that freezes should be loosely tied to anticipated events of
> pervasive significance, such as the change of the kernel from 2.2.x
> to 2.4.x., an upgrade of glibc version, or something of that sort,
> possibly to a major release of a high-demand application such as
> Apache.
You're contradicting yourself. Since almost all projects we're
depending on don't have hard schedules, we can't at the same time have
hard schedules and release right after a significantly new version of
xyz comes out.
FWIW, if xyz can (as you seem to suggest) take any value of: Linux,
libc, Apache, XFree, Gnome, etc. we would be doing a release a month
on average. In reality, sometimes rapid-fire releases would have to be
done, and then longer periods of silence. This would perhaps make some
sense for three main packages, but you would first have to decide
which packages are arch-important (I only see libc as an obvious
runner).
> If we say now that we are going to target a freeze of woody about three
> months after the release of potato, and then a release of woody three more
> months after the freeze, then everyone can plan accordingly.
Of course. But nobody can make the guarantee that these schedules will
hold. If the deadline slips, will developers get kicked? Remember that
these are volunteers, and Debian usually plays second fiddle to real
life concerns.
[please cut down the citations]
--
Robbe
Reply to: