On Tuesday 2008 December 30 12:30:40 Barclay, Daniel wrote: > However, when you're releasing N thousand changes every 18 months or so, > it's arguable that maybe you should be releasing N/2 thousand changes every > 9 or 10 months. Bah. I think that 18 months is a fine amount of time between stable OS versions. Ubuntu's releases come out half-baked 2 out of 3 times anyway, so we only get a really stable release from them every 18 months. :P Microsoft will spend 18 months just *talking* about the release of their next OS, and longer to actually get it out the door, and it's *never* stable on day 1. :P There are downsides to rotating stable more often, too. Either Debian has to support more releases simultaneously or releases fall out of support more often and the users are forced to upgrade if they want to continue to receive security fixes. Perhaps it's just because it's happening right now, but I think the biggest problem with Debian's current release process is how disruptive a freeze is to unstable. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.