On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:58:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:14:02PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > >> also sprach Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2005.06.10.2300 +0200]: > >> > Currently, I am planning to stick around for etch. If we're still waiting > >> > for etch two years from now, it's hard to predict how I'll feel at that > >> > point. :) > >> QUICK, ALL: this should be enough of a reason to get etch out in > >> a year! > > ... which as I've said repeatedly, I have no intention of trying to do. > Why not? Because I value what little of my sanity remains, and am guarding it jealously. A 12-month release cycle for etch would mean that someone else would need to take point on it; the rate at which the release team's involvement would have to ramp up again for a 12-month cycle wouldn't leave me enough time to breathe. I'm also not really convinced that a 12-month release cycle is actually a good idea at this point -- in terms of either setting believable expectations, or what users of stable actually want (clearly anyone who stuck with woody for three years and is now upgrading to sarge doesn't see quick release cycles as a sticking point), or having a reasonable development cycle that lets us advance etch to where we want it to be after sarge having been largely frozen for the past year. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature