(trimming -release) On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:14:49AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:53:36PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > So instead, we have a system where people take individual (or small > > group) responsibility for a particular piece of software, to take care > > of it and fix its bugs. This way, we distribute the effort over a large > > number of people. > > The problem is, this often chaotic development system doesn't scale to > over 1200 developers (including many MIA developers). I think the only sticking point is determining when someone is actually MIA. Once it is established that they are MIA, NMUs and adoptions are relatively painless. > > If Red Hat ships more of the software the user needs, maybe it is a better > > choice. Choice is one of the great advantages of free software, after all. > > The question is perhaps a different one: > What is the goal of Debian? It meets my OS and application needs, and that is all that I ask of it. > This is not about "free software" or such goals, it's about what > audiences and niches does Debian target at. My "target audience" is myself and those around me (employers, co-workers, family, friends, etc.), and, by way of reciprocity, other Debian developers and their users. > I'm not saying this would be immoral or something like that, but e.g. a > major release without Evolution [2] (currently ages away from reentering > testing) might make Debian stable unusable for many users - and you should > be aware of such consequences. I don't use evolution, so I really haven't concerned myself with this at all. Some people that I work with do use it, though, so if there is something bite-sized that I can do to help it along, I would probably do it. However, evolution has no RC bugs, and is only waiting on dependencies. It looks like GNOME 2 in general needs either more time or more hinting. > > I think this is more or less what was proposed in the last release timeline, > > where major changes in certain packages were frozen at various dates. > > There are some problems with the release timeline: > > Debian stable is too outdated, it doesn't even reasonable support most > available new hardware. At least one release [3] every year would be > required. You keep saying this, but in my experience it simply isn't true. I regularly install woody on brand-new Intel systems. Most of the time, the woody kernels suffice, and when I need some obscure bug fix from a later kernel, I simply upgrade the kernel rather than dismissing the entire release as "too outdated". > Releases are not predictable for the average user. For one year after the > release of Debian 3.0 there was no statement when Debian 3.1 will be > released, and the latest announcement that Debian 3.1 will be released on > December 1st (spread via Debian developers to many users and the press) > seems to be quite unrealistic - it seems even unrealistic to miss this > date by only one or two months. I am a user, and I don't need predictable Debian releases. I would benefit if they were somewhat more frequent (say, one per year), but there are very few packages that I find myself upgrading in order to satisfy real needs. It doesn't bother me in the least that I don't know when sarge will be release, though obviously sooner is better than later. I'm typing this from a woody laptop, because it's the only Debian system I have available at the time. It has a usable graphical environment, with decent web browsers, development tools and networking facilities. It gets the job done. I simply don't need the latest GNOME or KDE goodies in order to be productive. > What are the unexpected delays in the dvelopment of debian-installer? I don't think that I implied that there was any particular reason for the delays; the d-i folks would certainly know better. My impression was that it simply isn't finished yet. -- - mdz
