On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:46:49AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > Adam Majer <adamm@galacticasoftware.com> writes: > > > Steve Langasek wrote: > > > >> <>On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:28:43PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > > > Short release cycles are not good. IMHO, Debian should aim for release > > cycles not shorter than one year and not too much over two years. The > > entire point of stable, AFAIK, is its code stability. When one installs > > a distribution on a server or production machine, then it is not very > > disirable to update that every few months (of course, security updates > > are a different story). > > Is it better to make small scale, manageable upgrades on a production > server every 6 months, or to wait 2+ years and make an absolutely > massive upgrade in which you're jumping from 2-3 year old software to > current software? The latter. Upgrade == downtime. Downtime every six months -> no. Universities, for example, run on a 12-month cycle. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature