Re: New stable version after Sarge
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:34:20PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > One of the biggest disadvantages of Debian for me is the long time
> > it takes for a new stable version.
> > What about saying something like: the next stable release comes in
> > the beginning of 2006?
> The release date for a Debian release is not set by a calendar but by
> quality. At least that's been the case including sarge. Hence, such
> a sentence would not mean anything.
Then let's accept the premise behind the whole testing idea and target
Sarge+1 for Sarge+6 months.
Or does the <foo> team have plan that will stall that release for
> What if the installer is broken at that time?
debian-installer is good as it is now. Sarge+6 months should be able
to use more or less the same installer, plus new drivers. And a
cursory look at the debian installer code gives me the impression that
adding new drivers should be relatively easy.
> What if the buildd network is busted at that time?
Well, I surely hope the buildd network won't be busted for x time
(where x is much larger than a couple of weeks). Do you have something
concrete in mind (like, say, one half of an arch builders bailing out
because people can't seem to talk to each other or something like
> What if n library transitions are in progress at that time?
Well... according to the testing delus^Widea, this should not
happen. Or, if it happens, it should be not so difficult to handle...
Oh... hi, reality... nice to make your acquaintance.
> What if our archive suite lacks an important improvement which is a
> requirement for being able to maintain the new stable release?
Come on. This one really feels like a cheap excuse.
First, are any such important-can't-wait-a-second-longer improvements
Second, there's such a thing as testing. No, not that part of the
archive. Real testing. Calling for people to upload real packages to
a testing archive. Doing real work with the testing archive. Bouncing
real uploads from the real archive to the testing archive. Such
Third, there's also planning ahead. If Bar wants to absolutely have
that important improvement before sarge+1, Bar should allot something
like 3-4 *months* before the target release date for the in-archive
testing phase and be ready to commit some time for urgent fixes. If
that can't be done because all this is volunteer work and all those
things (that I can fully relate to and I'm not downplaying one iota!),
then sorry, we can't have that important improvement. IOW, don't stall
the whole project because of your pet peeve.
> Sure, you could still release, but would you really like to have such
> a release?
I would like to get rid of the "Debian can't make timely releases" and
"Debian stable is a bunch of out-of-date software" stigmas.
In fewer words: I want to have the cake and eat it, too. Debian stable
without the 2 year lapsus in between.
> What if security support for a new release cannot be guaranteed at
> that time?
That is a show stopper. "We did our best, but we can't release Debian
Sarge+1 at this time. New target date for release: ..."
If you give people a target to work with, with enough time (and
"enough" has to take into consideration that Debian is still mostly put
together by volunteers), people can plan ahead. The current chaos does
not give *developers* this. And users get frustrated each time they
see a Debian 3.0rX come out, but no sarge in sight.
I do get your point and I'm not saying that it is easy (or even
possible!) to stick to a faster release schedule, but refusing it
upfromt without trying does not help.