On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 11:41:35AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> It is clear from the discussion that there would be consequences. Some
> would be negative, some positive. I think that we have now a pretty good
> understanding of the possibilities and their consequences. The remaining
> problem is to count DDs heads in the two camps:
> - "Let's focus on stable releases. A rolling release should not be
> provided officially by Debian."
> - "Let's see what we can do about rolling, provided we find a way to do it
> without diminishing the quality of our stable releases."
FWIW I'm in neither. My camp would be: Please do not impede our way to
produce stable releases in any ways, do whatever you want with rolling.
I've suggested integrating aptosid (or $derivative) people inside of
Debian as a way to provide rolling, I know that Joss did so on planet
too e.g. That has two very important advantages:
* it brings in new blood *now* (and not an hypothetical later) to
actually take care of rolling (which doesn't make all my reservation
moot but I reckon does lessen their scope significantly);
* it brings people who know how to do that and already have
infrastructure to do so. We would just give them the opportunity to
benefit from the larger and robust infrastructure we have, while
taking their experience. Looks like it's win-win.
They probably have good ideas on what could be improved in Debian to
make their job easier, while *we* don't since we never tried.
Just to say that your bipartisan view is a tad simplistic :)
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madco...@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110503113123.gn...@madism.org
