Re: Debian doesn't have to be slower than time.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:00:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins@videotron.ca> writes:
>
> > No. The difference is that you pick a *short* fixed amount of time
> > before the freeze. I'd suggest 2 months.
> >
> > That forces you to drastically limit the changes to basic things, like
> > say, boot floppies. A smaller change has a higher chance of
> > stabilizing in a reasonable amount of time (say another 2 months).
> > Voila: 3 releases/year.
>
> Sometimes we do want to change major things. In this version of
> reality, how would we ever do that?
The way that I talked about previously in this thread. If a task is too big
to be completed in one release... then the task is too big. Break it up,
and make it into smaller tasks that *can* get done.
If the task is something that truly required all 8000 packages to be built
again (a non-backwards-compatible libc upgrade, I guess, or something),
then that becomes the sole focus for that entire release. But Debian seems
to be much better at coping with such situations in the first place - isn't
that why our packaging tools are so complex? So that we *can* handle things
like multiple libc versions... and do a rolling update as packages can be
gotton to.
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Reply to: