Re: Release Cycle

To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Release Cycle
From: Ken Teague <kteague@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:20:57 -0800
Message-id: <[🔎] 4963D949.40102@pobox.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20090106220236.GA5981@olga>
References: <8b229a2f0812230428k16eaf372k62c3ef09f6884aad@mail.gmail.com> <slrngl8vg5.28n.keeling@kiak.nucleus.com> <495A68D0.3080302@fgm.com> <495AB101.6060802@pobox.com> <[🔎] 49638E6F.4060503@fgm.com> <[🔎] 4963BEFC.7010106@pobox.com> <[🔎] 20090106220236.GA5981@olga>

David Jardine wrote:
> If that's not a complete load of rubbish, quality will be improved 
> by longer release cycles.


Makes sense to me.  I also found this in a very old post to this list
which points out a lot of pros and cons::

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:36:15 +0530, Masatran, R. Deepak wrote:
> Subject: Debian release policy?
>
> I heard that because Etch has been released, and because Debian has
> got a new Project Leader, the Debian release policy might be changed
> <http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals>. Is the release policy being
> discussed? If so, where?

Reply to:

References:
- Re: Release Cycle
  - From: "Barclay, Daniel" <daniel@fgm.com>
- Re: Release Cycle
  - From: Ken Teague <kteague@pobox.com>
- Re: Release Cycle
  - From: David Jardine <david@jardine.de>

Prev by Date: Re: Release Cycle
Next by Date: Re: Release Cycle
Previous by thread: Re: Release Cycle
Next by thread: Re: Release Cycle
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread