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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:45 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the
> crafting of a prospective release plan for etch.  

Thank you to those individuals who worked on this plan; I think its a
good step in reducing our release turnaround time.

> - the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new

I'd like to see if we can clarify this text.  I can see some of the
problems this requirement would solve, such as guaranteed availability
of replacement parts for Debian machines, etc.  However, I wouldn't want
to see us drop an arch with a large user community because a company
decides to discontinue a product.

For example, although HP announced they are going to discontinue alpha,
there maybe a large number of alpha users/developers who want to see
stable releases continue, even after debian could no longer purchase a
new one[1].

If its really some side-effect of the discontinuation that's an issue,
let's list that side-effect instead; e.g., if the real issue is that we
need to have a reliable source for spare parts or replacement machines,
lets say that - there are other ways to assure part availability.  If
this requirement is a guideline to help us get down to a target number
of architectures, lets explicitly say that, versus listing it as a firm

[1] I have no idea how many alpha users we have, nor how many want to
have a stable release - this is just an example.

dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org>
(Note: I'm employed by HP, but I'm not speaking on behalf of HP)

Reply to: