Do you remember GNOME 0.30? I do because it was in stable after 1.0 was
released. What would YOU call the more stable version? Just because something
makes it into stable doesn't mean it's really a fully stable package. And just
because something is NEWER doesn't mean it's not stable, or even "bleeding
edge". Now, running unstable is the bleeding edge, and probably everyone on
devel has done a fair ammount of bleeding because of it. It's what we accept.
But, the general trend on software updates is that, major version changes aside,
they FIX problems and make using that package easier. People who call for the
release version when all that was previously in stable was an alpha or beta
version arn't asking for bleeding edge stuff. The call for shorter development
cycles will fix this problem, but until Woody is frozen(which we can HOPE will
be only another 3-4 months after Potato is released), people will be looking for
XF86 4.0, possibly Kernel 2.4(full, not pre-release), and so on. If Debian does
a stable release each time a major package comes out, sure, we will end up with
releases very quickly, but to prepare a new release will also be EASIER, since
not every single package will change between releases.
Dave Bristel
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:53:41 -0600
> From: Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
> Resent-Date: 12 Mar 2000 21:53:48 -0000
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
> On 12-Mar-00, 10:56 (CST), Ron Farrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree! (surprise ;) I personally know of about ~4 people who were
> > turned away from slink because GNOME and KDE were so OLD. I personally
> > got around this by running potato (unstable then), but most people don't
> > WANT to run unstable!
>
> Which is it? Do your friends want the newest bleeding edge stuff, or
> do they want stability? They can't have both at the same time! Oh, I
> see, the want the newest, but they want us to call it "stable".
>
> Sigh.
>
> Why is is this basic distinction so hard to explain to people? Testing
> and reliability take time. During that time, new features are going to
> show up in various parts of the system. Along with those new features
> come compatibility and reliability problems. You can either have the new
> features, or you can have a tested, stable, reliable *system*. *YOU*
> *CAN'T* *HAVE* *BOTH*.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
> every list I post to.)
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
