Re: Temporal Release Strategy
Adam M wrote:
Why? Why is there RHEL 2.0, 3.0.. Why not just RHEL 2005-01-01,
2005-01-02, etc..?
Because redhat makes money selling releases.
> The releases are there to provide interface stability. Everyone does
this.
Everyone being other distributions? I disagree. How many Fortune 500
customers have you deployed debian for? interface stablility? Anyone
that cares looks at packages that matter specifically if it's being
deployed commercially.
It's much better for acceptance that you don't have to have
conversations with managers because someone explains to them that you
should be using redhat because you are using "Debian unstable" or
"Debian testing" and it's *dangerous* and *unstable*. Get rid of these
stupid symlinks; debian sid's been superior to fedora for years.
Now, if you want to support snapshot of Debian with 36 month security,
well, be my guest :) In the last 36-months, there were about 30
uploads of Apache to unstable.
Excellent.
> Now, if only 15 such versions
propagated to stable snapshots, then you find a remote hole, and
suddenly you have to backport a security fix for 15 versions of
Apache!
What?
Isn't the process:
1) make a patch
2) give it to the apache developers
3) new packaged apache versions have the patch
4) patch makes it upstream
5) patch no longer needed in debian package
Also, try providing an efficient stable security build daemons! The
chroots would have to be rebuilt for each package.
? I guess I don't understand enough about how the build process works
for the packages in debian but that sounds funny to me. Or I just don't
understand what you mean.
I think this proposal could actually enhance the stability of Debian
(where stability is defined as lack of bugs, not software that never
changes except for security updates), as well as further enhance the
reputation Debian maintains in the community.
I totally agree with this & a temporal release strategy.
In many ways, current testing is your stable.
No kidding, so what the heck is the point of having a stable symlink to
woody. The stable, testing and unstable symlinks should be removed. They
are just being used as FUD by people against debian.
Extending the testing
period from testing to your proposed candidate and then stable would
do nothing about normals bugs. RC bugs are usually found quite quickly
by people using unstable.
Why not let people choose what they want to use "woody" "sarge" or "sid"
and never change the names again. I think lots of people are happy with
how things work now. No need to ever do a release again. Just remove the
old/arcane symlinks. Almost everyone I know uses sid; I don't think
anyone is going to switch to sarge once sid is out.
Jeff
Reply to: