Scott Kitterman wrote: > If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to believe that creating the release > is > somehow the release team's job. It's not. The job belongs to all of us.
No, that's not what I'm saying. But I think the release team is primarily responsible for the policies that harm the work other maintainers do on unstable. A release must not be the only goal for package maintainers, and IMO it should not be an overriding one either. Distributions that make latest software available are necessary for free software development. It's not responsible for Debian to say "development of new software should happen on a distro like Arch, we'll just use the results". And Debian is too big to be just for people that care about releases only; if it gathers packagers and then actively hinders their ability to work on packaging the latest versions, that hurts free software development overall. So keeping unstable in good shape and up to date is an important goal, independently of its usefulness as material for releases. If the release process only failed to create a new release in a timely manner and before it's already obsolete, that alone wouldn't be so much of an issue. But the way it's now done actively keeps other maintainers from doing useful work that they would otherwise be doing. And I don't think "they should have done some other different work first" is enough of an excuse to justify that. -- 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/1364782366.1928.78.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
