Re: Confusing our users - who is supporting LTS?
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:56:26PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 04:31:38PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 01:14:13AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > Debian can't afford to pay developers in general, and previous
> > > proposals to pay specific developers were not well received.
> > That was over a decade ago. The circumstances at the time were also
> > different.
>
> I'm not sure that so much has changed. I really like that LTS is managed
> outside Debian, precisely because money is involved.
When I say "the circumstances were different", I mean that at the time,
it was about paying people to do release management of testing, and that
it was originally suggested by the DPL. In this case, it is about
paying people to work on the exact opposite of the release train, and it
has no DPL involvement.
I think it would be fine if Debian were to, occasionally, sponsor people
to work on LTS, provided that it does not become a "LTS is only paid for
by Debian" situation. Say, we could do a matching drive or something
along those lines (as in, "Debian will match any sponsorship up to
XYZ").
Of course you might reasonably disagree with that opinion, but "the
circumstances are different" is a simple statement of fact ;-)
> So I'm very happy that Raphael is 'the benevolent dictator of LTS' *and*
> that LTS is designed not to rely on Freexian.
Yes, the latter is very important, I agree -- that's why I was opposed
to mentioning Freexian as "doing LTS" on the website; even if that ends
up being the truth in practice, I think we should absolutely not
perpetuate the idea that that is the *only* possibility.
--
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Reply to: