On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:42:50AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> It's quite frustrating that there's no clear schedule towards Debian
> 3.1 that includes a date for the beginning of the freeze.
Agreed. It's frustrating, indeed. Historically, Debian takes the Linux
kernel strategy: "It's ready when it's ready." Without schedules to
commit to, Debian avoids the reputation of not releasing "on time".
Debian can never be behind or late, but it never promises to be
punctual, timely.
Obviously there are Pro's and Con's to this approach. The primary Pro's
are: Debian can ignore complaints of obsolescense. Debian will always
release stable, secure, and consistant state.
The Con's are: Debian is behind the curve compared to most distribution
releases. Although Debian can ignore complaints of obsolescense, the
truth is quite opposite with repect to upstream stable releases of
software. There is a motivational factor that is lost by our developers
when you don't have deadlines. The public impression of progress is
lost when there are no deadlines.
So on and so forth... Can you guess which I would favor?
I still like the componentization idea of Ian's, but I'll not drag that
argument into this thread just yet.
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature