also sprach Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> [2009.07.30.1928 +0200]:
> time-based freezes
> ==================
> For the squeeze release (and future releases), we are considering
> a time-based freeze, meaning that the freeze will happen at
> a predictable and predetermined time with the release happening at
> a later time once the release requirements are met.
[...]
> Based on feedback of the community on the plan to freeze in
> December 2009 and the ambituous Release Goals we set for
> ourselves, we are revisiting the decision to freeze December 2009.
>
> We'll be consulting all key teams within Debian to see how their
> plans and schedules can fit into a new timeline. Before the end of
> August we hope to have finished this process of consultation and
> be able to present the new plan to you.
I am not trying to discuss this point, but would like to provide
some input from DebConf.
For one reason or another, I've had many (~25 or more) people
approach me about this at DebConf (don't ask me why). I have tried
my best to stay neutral and not question or defame the release
team's decision, but there's been a common theme and concern, which
I cannot find addressed in the afore-referenced announcement, so I'd
like to let you know.
Those who asked me basically agreed with time-based freezes. But
what threw people off was the premature freeze of squeeze, which
most speculated must be due to Canonical. In relation to Mark's
recent interview at derstandard.at[0], people were wondering
- whether Canonical had just bought our release team (4 or
5 speculated that)
- what the benefits were to Debian of syncing with Ubuntu (most
people just assumed that this what was happening but couldn't
understand the reasons)
- whether there is another reason to shorten the lenny lifecycle,
unrelated to Ubuntu (IIRC 6 people didn't even consider Canonical
to be involved in this).
In the next announcement, I strongly suggest you approach this
point. If you are syncing with Ubuntu LTS, then I suggest you state
the reasons for doing so, e.g. that Canonical has agreed to provide
security upgrades for squeeze).
Another concern voiced was the security cycle of lenny. If this is
unrelated to Canonical, then maybe the security team should make
a statement in your announcement that they're ready for it. If it's
related to Canonical, then include a statement from Canonical how
they expect to support that.
0. http://derstandard.at/1246541995003/Interview-Shuttleworth-about-GNOME-30---Whats-good-whats-missing-what-needs-work
Hope this helps,
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> Related projects:
: :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"man sagt nicht 'nichts!', man sagt dafür 'jenseits' oder 'gott'."
- friedrich nietzsche
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)