Re: Freeze date for potato?
It seems that some people don't understand the purpose of "freeze". In simple
terms, when a release is "frozen", that means that new packages, and
major/significant changes will not be accepted for inclusion. This does not
prevent bug fixes, but DOES prevent someone from suddenly deciding to upgrade
glibc 2.1 to 2.2. It also implies that the release on the whole is reasonably
stable, so is ready to enter testing phase. I suppose that we could go to a
"release candidate" model during the freeze, but that's something for another
discussion. Perhaps if "goals" for the next release were announced, people
could understand more fully why we havn't released potato yet. Any opinions?
Dave Bristel
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Justin Maurer wrote:
> Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 16:20:59 -0500
> From: Justin Maurer <justin@slashdot.org>
> To: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Freeze date for potato?
> Resent-Date: 6 May 1999 20:19:03 -0000
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
> > > Also, how are past abuses going to be dealt with? Specifically the wave of
> > > new, broken uploads on the eve of the freeze?
>
> isn't that what the freeze is for? if you are so concerned, perhaps the
> freeze and the release date should be further apart.
>
> > Perhaps by not publishing a freeze date in advance?
>
> why? that is just plain old mean. :( the release master(s) should not
> be the only one to know when we are going to freeze/release...
>
> just mho,
> justin
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> # Justin Maurer GNOME Hacker #
> # justin@openprojects.net Slashdot Author #
> # http://slashdot.org/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer #
> # 09 84 FC 03 13 AA 4A AF F6 A4 85 9D 8C 96 B6 A4 #
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: