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

Re: debian mate

Michael Schmitt <tcwardrobe@gmail.com> writes:

> That may be common thinking, agreed. But I am that extremely worried
> about the current upgrade solution in wheezy, sorry... I think Debian
> should try to get it in.

We are way, way too late in the release process for something that
substantial.  There are other alternatives to GNOME 3 already available in
wheezy for those who really dislike GNOME 3.  (Xfce, for example, seems to
have become a popular alternative to both KDE 4 and GNOME 3 among the
people I know who disliked the direction of those two projects.)

> And freeze means "not released yet" last I checked. And Debian is the
> perfect example for a project that does rather release a month or two
> (or even longer) if needed, to get things right.

As a user of Debian, I would very much prefer that Debian not delay the
release by even two months for MATE.  Nothing against MATE, but
introduction of a new desktop environment, even one with arguably nice
upgrade properties from a desktop environment in the last stable release,
is not the sort of emergency that should warrant postponing the release.

This is how freezes work.  If someone wants substantial new development
(and MATE, regardless of what it was forked from, still amounts to
substantial new development from a packaging perspective) in the next
release of Debian, it needs to be in unstable before the freeze.  If it
isn't, oh well, better luck for the next stable release.

As Debian gets larger and larger, we're going to have to get more and more
strict about this policy.  Every project thinks their needs are
particularly important, but down that path lies never releasing at all.
If it needs to be in the next stable, it needs to be in before the
release, period.  Anything else that isn't a bug fix to an existing
package will not be included, and the bar to override that default needs
to be quite high.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: