| Adam Majer 2004-07-23, 2:50 am |
| Steve Langasek wrote:
> <>On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:28:43PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>
> 1 year for sarge+1 seems more likely, with a goal of 9-month cycles
> after that. Considering how long it took the tool chain to stabilize
> again after woody's release, I don't think it's a good idea to bet on
> *ever* hitting 6-months for release, and I don't think everyone even
> agrees that this is desirable.
Short release cycles are not good. IMHO, Debian should aim for release
cycles not shorter than one year and not too much over two years. The
entire point of stable, AFAIK, is its code stability. When one installs
a distribution on a server or production machine, then it is not very
disirable to update that every few months (of course, security updates
are a different story).
The reality of Debian is that we now do have long release cycles (2
years for Potato->Woody)... Now we are over two years for Sarge...
The biggest problem with Sarge might be the last of AMD64 support. I do
not think it is best for us to wait another two years for AMD64 to get
to stable. I'd rather wait another 3-4 months for Sarge *with* amd64.
- Adam
--
Building your applications one byte at a time
http://www.galacticasoftware.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|