On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:28:43PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> [2004.07.22.1647 +0200]: > > very widely deployed architecture in the very near future, and (speaking > > as a user here) Debian is doing a disservice to its users if it ignores > > this fact and waits until sarge+1 to support it. > ... only if we take 2.5 years for sarge+1 to release. If we release > sarge+1 shortly thereafter, like after 4-6 months, it would solve > all problems for all i can tell. And it's not like we cannot. We > just have to get our act together. > obviously though, we would have to make that commitment. I would not > want to hear in 4-6 months that we are not ready. I don't think 4-6 months is realistic for sarge+1. While everyone does seem to agree that shorter release cycles would be better, meeting deadlines requires buy-in from the whole community, and it's going to take some time for the release team to show the developers -- and ourselves -- that shorter release cycles are really possible for Debian. 1 year for sarge+1 seems more likely, with a goal of 9-month cycles after that. Considering how long it took the tool chain to stabilize again after woody's release, I don't think it's a good idea to bet on *ever* hitting 6-months for release, and I don't think everyone even agrees that this is desirable. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature