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

Re: Should we divide Debian to usable and unusable

For what it's worth, I quite like the philosophy of Rasterman, the author of
Enlightenment.  Enlightenment's at about v0.16 at the moment.  When I asked
Raster "When's v1.0 coming out?", his reply was "When I've finished coding
everything I can think of and want to do, and don't want to touch the thing any

Works for me :)


On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 02:44:41PM -0700, Mike Markley wrote:
> I agree that putting unusable software into the stable distribution is a Bad
> Idea(tm) but that's what the BTS and the freeze exist for. A whole lot of
> free software spends a long time in pre-1.0 stages. In the commercial arena,
> we have beta test programs and whatnot to eliminate the need for pre-1.0
> public releases, but it doesn't work that way for free software - in fact,
> none of my packages are even at 1.0 yet and I find them extremely usable.
> I've been using GIMP for various things since well before 1.0 as well. We
> can't apply the same anti-beta senisibilities to free software since the
> average free software developer doesn't have the resources to get a bunch of
> beta testers to bang on it before a public release. If a package is
> unusable, an RC bug will be filed. If it is not fixed by the time that
> distribution freezes and hits its first bug horizon, it simply won't be in
> stable. We already have quality control mechanisms in place to prevent the
> distribution of unusable packages in stable (it is there, I don't want to
> re-open the "shorter release cycle" can of worms in this thread), and free
> software to some degree has always been about getting Joe Blow to test it
> out for us. If it's unusable, file a bug and as long as it remains that way
> it won't go into stable. If it's perfectly usable, as so many pre-1.0
> packages are, then don't sweat it. Or at least that's my POV.

PGP public key intermittently available at 

Attachment: pgprU2nqwRy0m.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: