On Tuesday 15 March 2005 22:42, Brian Nelson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:26:58PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > Hello > > > > As most people in this threas have expressed lot of bad feelings about > > this. I must tell that I think this proposal is a good step toward > > quicker releases etc. > > > > With the clarifications (see the new thread) I must say that this > > is a very sane proposal. > > > > Some people tend to think the worst of everything. If you look at this > > proposal as a proposal and with the intention to make things working > > in a good way, I think this proposal is one of the best ones in a > > very long time. > > I agree. It's become quite evident that Debian is barely able to make > releases at all with the status quo. what status quo? We went from: - 1 RM to a release team - lots of kernel source package to 1 kernel source package (per kernel-version) - kernel being maintained by lone maintainer to kernel being maintained by team - unmaintanable installer that nobody wanted to work on, to great new installer with lots of people working on it - we updated some of the infrastructre were that was necessary
All of these are considerable improvements, that should I think help us make
new releases easier, things are improving
> And, given a choice between having
> no stable releases at all and having stable releases of a significantly
> reduced number of arches, I'd gladly choose the latter.
Do we have scalability problems -> yes
Is it clear that those problems are fundamentally unsolvable (and hence we'd
need to limit the number of architectures) -> not at all
> What baffles me is why so many seem to miss this point and instead have
> decided to turn it into a religious flame war.
we haven't missed the point:
- namely we need to release in a somewhat predictable time frame (only
releasing once every 2, (or even 3) years is not the main problem, the
problem is that we spend over a year saying we'll release RSN and )
-> lots of people just disagree that with how the Vancouver proposal goes
about solving the problem
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
pgpE1suGU0BZz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
