Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:46 AM, 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.
I do agree with what you have written. I think if Debian has worked more than 13
years as it is right now, changing our way of working to satisfy what other says
is not good, it's something that won't help us to improve anything. I wouldn't
like to be bad understood because of what I have written. I am not blaming the
release team nor saying that that was the fact which make them to take such a
decision, but I can't see what the reasons were. I only read a message saying
"Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes".
IMO, this time-based release will have a very important impact in how Debian is
seen either by our users and the community since there not appear to have any
consensus of the benefits of this decision for us. I am not sure if it'll be a
bad or a good decision (because we haven't implemented it yet) , but given the
way everyone is getting this, it will have a bad impact.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Frans Pop<email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 30 July 2009, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> - The completely voluntary nature of the project does not really lend
> itself to hard timelines. If it turns out on the planned date of the
> freeze that there are still major issues open, we need to be flexible
> enough to delay the freeze.
This is the main reason why this announce is being that controversial. Debian is
a voluntary-nature project, imposing this kind of time-lines, or even worse,
forcing in some way to change the plans of DD's to carry out their changes to
packages | goals for a release, it will cause this conflicts. We have had this
kind of discussions before, and we always have been able to decide correctly. I
hope this time we do it, too.
Muammar El Khatib.
Linux user: 403107.
GPG Key = 127029F1
http://muammar.me | http://proyectociencia.org
: :' :