Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 01:38:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Enrique Zanardi writes ("Re: Release management - technical"):
> > > On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > ...
> > > > I think we can only do one of these. With hamm we're doing the
> > > > latter; in the future I think we should do the former.
> > >
> > > Fine, as long as we have some "long term goals" that must be achieved,
> > > better sooner than later (FHS compliance, for example).
> >
> > NO! Absolutely not, if you're going to say `must be achieved'.
> >
> > I read `must be achieved' to mean `we will delay the release if these
> > are not achieved'.
>
> Oops. That's not what I wanted to express. Long-term goals shouldn't
> delay the release.
Personally I have the feeling that it should read "must be achieved" but that
long-term-goals should be broken up in realisable chunks. Otherwise there is
never a deadline for things and even if you can't coerce somebody to do
something, a dealine still forces some preassure on people. (This is
incidently the reason why the freeze caused so many uploads and made the
distribution unstable for a while).
In the libc5 to libc6 changeover we had "get the fundamental libs going" and
then "get the apps" those landmarks could have made a realease possible. The
problem, IMHO is that we were to ambitious not that it is inherently wrong
to strive for some release goals.
> I agree. An example of "long term goal" is "apt". We want to substitute
> dselect with apt eventually, and there is a group of volunteers working
> towards it, but that goal won't delay hamm's release..
But getting the command-line backend working is one of the subgoals and
having it has produced a "release" landmark.
Luis.
--
Luis Francisco Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP Fingerprint = F8 B1 13 DE 22 22 94 A1 14 BE 95 8E 49 39 78 76
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
