Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 04:38:44PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:43:55PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Do you really intend to release in that date? I'm not very informed about
> > the release process, but it seems to me there's a psychological factor here,
> > in which the first announced release date is intentionaly unrealistic.
>
> There are psychological factors that have prevented us from reaching our
> target release date, but that doesn't mean the release team's targets were
> "intentionally unrealistic".
Sorry, I didn't intend to sound harsh. These are very subjective terms, and
it seems that the barried between realistic and unrealistic is a bit blurred.
Let me put it another way. If we consider 18 months a hard deadline, what
happens if the release is scheduled for, say, 16 months with the _intention_
to release in 16 months, but giving it some margin for rescheduling? Would
that be reasonable?
In general, what are the reasons that tend to cause delays? Does it have
something to do with the horde of devlopers pushing for new upstreams and
features into the release at the last minute? (now I feel a bit guilty about
this... ;-)).
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
Reply to: