[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)

Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> writes:
> The thing is, that if lenny will be released post-deadline, all the
> improvements carried by it will be of no use for the 64-bit battle that
> will have finished by late 2008.

I don't believe that there will be a 64-bit battle in late 2008, and I
don't accept some loose interpolation from numbers of the past by
someone I wouldn't trust to count from 1 to 10 correctly [1] as an
argument here.

Basically I would like to development on etch to take about 18 months,
which would mean releasing in (late) 2008. I don't believe that we will
be able to hold that date, but 21 months sounds realistic, which would
mean releasing around my 23st birthday [4]. I found the etch release
cycle to be mostly OK, with only some rough edges that could be avoided
for lenny [3]

We (as the release team) will send another mail to dda in the next few
days or weeks, giving a detailed overview about our experiences with
etch, what we want to change for lenny and what pet goals we have this

I don't believe that Debian is able to release in much less than 18
months, and FWIW, ESR is not a good reason to move from a goal-based
schedule to a time-based schedule.

Marc, not speaking for the release team here

[1]  ie not including essays about non-free multimedia crap we need to
[2]  I would like that.
[3]  QA measures searching for bugs starting very late, this should be
     done earlier for etch and the kernel situation was a bit of a

BOFH #110:
The rolling stones concert down the road caused a brown out

Attachment: pgp0bqf_NBIZJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: