Re: Squeeze Frozen, NOT
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 09:15:19 Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mon,01.Mar.10, 17:46:11, Stephen Powell wrote:
> > > There is no plan for timed release cycles, only timed freezes.
> > Hmm. Well, I suppose that timed freezes is better than timed
> > release cycles, but it still breaks the traditional concept of
> > "release goals", does it not? Historically, a new release had
> > a set of release goals associated with it. With timed release freezes,
> > that pretty much throws release goals out the window.
> I think it depends on whether the release goal is considered RC (release
> critical) or not. Even if you freeze the software versions, the release
> team can still grant exceptions in such cases and even without timed
> freezes, if a release goal is not ready it is not ready (dependency
> based boot for lenny, just to name an example).
> > Since the resources are fixed at $0 (donated free labor) and the time
> > interval is fixed at one year, the release goals go out the window.
> > You just can't eat your cake and have it too.
> I don't think this is a fair comparison. Yes, it is free donated labor,
> but it doesn't mean that it's worth $0!
No - of course not - but it does mean that it *costs* $0. There are those who
know the price of everything and the value of nothing.