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

Re: My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

Stackpole, Chris wrote:

Personally, I would feel bad for the developers who would be forced to
upkeep an unstable, a testing alpha (may or may not break), a testing
(may or may not break), and a stable release version. It would be like
having a version of testing as a perpetual Release Candidate. I don't
really care to wish that on the developers.

If you want a working Sid machine, just load this:


(No, I don't endorse anyone but people who know what they're doing and what they're getting into using it -- I just know about it being "out there" and I'm sharing so the tweakers who can't wait, but also can't code or fix anything on their own... can play with it.)

I would like to see a well standardized release system. I think that is
one thing that Mark Shuttleworth is doing right over at Ubuntu. I
personally think that a 6mo release cycle is a bit much, however, would
it be really difficult to pick a date once a year and just state
something like "Every August 1rst testing is frozen and a release will
be made by the end of September!"? That way the time frame between
stable releases isn't absurd and everyone knows when they need to have
their code in place. It isn't an arbitrary date that developers may or
may not be aware of.

"Real" release dates are nice, but Debian also needs to keep the freedom to NEVER break policy that states critical bugs either mean the package is removed, or fixed, BEFORE release.

That's what makes Debian as rock-solid as it is for Production purposes.

If that means waiting 2 months to fix something that's busted... so be it.


Reply to: