Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
[Luk Claes]
> Who would you like to propose a release cycle to the project if not
> the Release Team?
So this is a proposal?
The Vancouver proposal should have taught us a lesson: when you
announce a big change, if you truly intend for it to be a proposal to
be discussed, you have to state this clearly, or people will get upset
at what they see as a fait accompli.
>> Why doing a 12 months release "to get into the new schedule" instead of
>> just adopting a 24 months schedule based on the lenny release?
> The main reason is that the Release Team hopes to now have the
> momentum to make a time based freeze work. If we would delay, it will
> very probably mean that many developers 'forget' about what the time
> based freeze is about.
This rationale doesn't seem very plausible, for two reasons.
First, what need is there for "momentum"? Announce "the freeze will be
in Dec 2010" and, if you think we will forget about it, periodically
remind us via those bits-of-the-RMs style mails.
Second, what is new about time-based freezing? Wasn't that what we did
for lenny? The release team had a graduated freeze schedule in place
well in advance, and tried hard to stick to it. What is different next
time?
There've been a lot of rumors that the 10 months until squeeze freeze
has more to do with trying to benefit Ubuntu LTS, than anything about
"momentum". This unfortunately sounds a lot more plausible to me. If
it is correct, I'd rather you just said so up front.
(For the record, it still wouldn't make me _happy_. Cui bono? I
believe freezing four months before an Ubuntu LTS release would not
benefit Debian at all. Freezing _after_ an LTS release, or at least
after an LTS freeze, would help Debian quite a lot more.)
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
Reply to: