Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Marc
> 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.
I don't get why do you consider 18-to-24-month release cycles a
desirable feature to prevent Debian from perishing. Is this just to
stay out of sync with another deb-based distro?
We are definitely not only major supplier to any other deb-based
distro, and you act our end customers are really happy with not even
knowing the date when we will freeze to our next release. Could you
please also point out why that's bad to a set of our end customers?
-- Gustavo "stratus" Franco