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

[adam@flounder.net: Re: testing and no release schedule]

----- Forwarded message from Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> -----
[Original was intended by me to go to the list. Nothing private here for
me alone so forwarding to list.]

Envelope-to: amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk
To: "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: testing and no release schedule
From: Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net>
X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.86 (Venetian Way)

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:00:23AM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:58:19PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 05:53:34PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > It's exactly the desktop software that often has
> > > very long dependency chains that are difficult to get into a releasable
> > > state at the same time.
> > 
> > ...yet all of the other Linux distributors seem to be able to do it.
> > 
> > --Adam
> Nope.  Red Hat 9 - i386 only
>        Fedora - i386/ia64
>        SuSE 9.1 i386/ia64/AMD ??
> See any Alpha / SPARC / m68k ??

No, and I could care less about them.  If our releases are being delayed
because we're spending too much time supporting dead platforms, we should
drop support for them in our releases, or at least support them as secondary
platforms which are released after the primary platforms.

> 	Also generally less than half the size of Debian unstable /
> 	testing or (perhaps with the exception of SuSE) stable.
> Enterprise editions may have - RH doesn't have Alpha / SPARC now -
> but it's generally a release or so behind.  Debian is also a 
> volunteer organisation.

The fact that Debian is a volunteer organization has nothing to do with the
fact that we release slowly.  I wish people would stop using this red herring
argument.  We probably have more manpower than the development teams of the 3
largest Linux distributors put together.  The problem, as in most large,
ineffective organizations, is in management.

> We're potentially more on the scale of an HP/IBM size in terms of
> hardware/software complexity than a RH/Mandrake/Novell??

No we're not, we're not even close to HP or IBM.  Stop making silly


----- End forwarded message -----

Reply to: