Re: Firefox and Sarge
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:52:02AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> Let me add that supporting for a couple of years a 0.8 (or 1.6 for mozilla) version,
> when much more complete versions 1.x (2.x) will be available in a few months is indeed
> a waste of time: users will upgrade to the latest anyway (by backports or
> using a vanilla binary, which is not a bad option at all in many cases for those programs).
> IMHO we should simply remove such kind of programs at the first point release and
> invite users to do the same and move to a newer version.
>
> This points us to the general problem that a 2-years time slice for releasing
> is a non-sense in the free-software world by many points of view, but it's surely
> true for 'workstation' use...
>
Yeah, there's a whole bunch of packages that go into a class that I call
"perishable" (in that they get worse with age, regardless).
It'd be good if there could be some agreement on what's perishable, and
what's not, and then think about how stable + updated perishable packages
could work. The closest thing we've got to this now is backports.org, but
that's a gross hack of a solution to the problem in itself.
I think ideally if backports.org + stable had security support, users
(particularly in the desktop space) would have the best of both worlds.
Or we could just release a tad more often...
I don't know why we can't set a release goal of once a year, or hell, in 18
months from Sarge releasing. Shoot for a freeze or semi-freeze in 12 months
or something.
regards
Andrew
Reply to: