Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
>> No, the project DID NOT decide it, the release team did, and the
>> project has to accept it; there's a lot of difference.
> No, the Release Team proposed a plan. The project is free to accept or
> refuse the plan. Of course refusing the plan will have its consequences
> within the Release Team as well as within the project.
So you basically try to suppress all discussion by issuing an "eat this
or get another release team"?
>> and what are the real advantages of this? I saw none in this announce.
> The main advantage of a time based freeze would be that developers have
> a clear idea about when the cutoff is for new features and when the
> period of stabilising to a release starts. This should give developers a
> better chance to plan and more responsibility in how they want to
> support their packages.
I don't think anyone is arguing against the time based freeze way of
The arguments go against the way you announced this *and* the extremely
short timeframe you leave the project to develop its distribution, thus
limiting squeeze to be just a lenny point release, compared to what we
had in prior releases.
>> if time-based is REALLY needed, why then not "freeze on even Dec and
>> release on Spring on odd years"? this will allow the current release
>> cycle to have enough time to achieve something, while letting
>> time-based proposers happy.
> The main reason is that we now have the momentum to try a time based
> freeze and that delaying the freeze would cause developers to 'forget'
> about what a time based freeze is about.
Sorry, you are happily destroying the momentum for a lot of people in
core and large teams.
>> should we remember here that lenny freeze took +6 months?
> Note that how long the freeze takes is the responsibility of all
> developers as the most important measure (RC bugs) can be influenced by
And thats why the Release Team should gather the developers behind them,
not in front against them. :)
> Not at all. The Release Team proposed a plan and it was welcomed during
> the team's keynote at DebConf. But your and others input is very much
It was welcomed by how many people? A dozen? Uh.
> The announcement was made to be sure that press coverage would not
> differ from the actual message and confuse people. It seems it has not
> reached that goal completely, though the intentions were good.
Really, the press is *unimportant* compared to communication *within*
the project. We are not a company which income depending on them. If the
press is dumb enough to take a story out of a non-announce list, then
fine, idiots everywhere. But that shouldn't have stopped you from
talking to *the* *project* first, instead of to press monkeys (our
press@ not meant with that).
Debian is mostly about free keysigning^Wspeech.