Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)
On 01-May-00, 04:10 (CDT), Hartmut Koptein <koptein@naffel.de> wrote:
> * better and newer boot-floppies in shorter time (language support in four months and
> not in 16 months)
This is a function of the number of people working on it, and the amount
of testing done, not the release cycle.
> * companies can handle debian better ( for books, cd's, PR, ...)
<sarcasm>Are these the same companies that were bitching about to many
releases a few years ago?</sarcasm>
> * new stable architectures (as powerpc and arm currently; mips and
> hurd for the future)
Again, they'll be ready when they're ready, according to the amount of
work being done. Doing more releases just means that there will be more
"Nope, not ready for stable release yet" decisions.
> can fix faster bad setups (boot-floppies, x11, usb, firewire,
> keyboards, languages, ...)
That's a matter of doing update releases on the stable dist, which we
are now doing.
> * we see a light at the end of the tunnel, have not so big goals,
> better quality managment,
Why better QM?
> * i hope we start important things at the start of a new cycle and not
> at the end
You've got cause and effect reversed here. We've never planned on
waiting a year between releases. The fact that we delay significant
decisions until the 3 months into the developement cycle is what causes
the delays, not the other way around.
> * work on 'new things' are prefered by many peoples
Those people will never be interested in making stable releases, because
they are bored by quality control and documentation.
> * easier for test-utilities
Why?
> * less bug possiblities, because of not so big package version updates
Uhh, this makes no sense. For the most part, packages track the upstream
releases. The fact that there is a big jump in versions between stable
and unstable doesn't mean the itermediate versions weren't packaged and
distributed.
> * we must not wait for the next version of gcc, libc, kernel, x11,
> mesa, ...
Were not waiting for them (or maybe I don't understand what you're
saying).
> * hopefully less RCB's
Why?
Steve
Reply to: