Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)
On 06-May-00, 07:15 (CDT), Mike Bilow <mikebw@colossus.bilow.com> wrote:
> That's true, but I was not suggesting that. Really, what I had in mind
> was that the release cycle should have a rough target schedule largely
> independent of external factors, such as every six months, but that this
> could be tweaked a little to avoid awkward external interactions. For
> example, if you have a reasonable expectation that there will be a major
> kernel upgrade along the lines of 2.2.x to 2.4.x, then it would be foolish
> to ignore this if delaying a month would let you get the new kernel in and
> tested.
Speaking specifically of kernels, if we did get to the point of
releasing every 6 months, then waiting for kernel 2.4.0 would be a bad
idea. Instead, we should pick up 2.4.7 in 6 months. Otherwise we get
criticized for including a broken kernel in our supposedly stable dist.
Similar reasoning applies to other major packages..
> Debian was managing a six-month release cycle some years ago.
When we had far fewer developers and 1/5th as many packages.
Steve
Reply to: