Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16, Marc Haber<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
>> Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze
>> again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to
>> be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian
>> in sync :
>> | The LTS will be either 10.04 or 10.10 - based on the conversation that
>> | is going on right now between Debian and Ubuntu.
> I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
> Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
> hard to make it look like that.
> In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
> accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync
> with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours.
> Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay
> asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to
> prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to
> Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed
> that way.
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi