On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 12:15:12AM -0400, Carl Fink wrote: > Which is kind of my point. If I were made dictator of the Debian > project (not bloody likely) I would declare all distributions to age > out at six months: at that point, unstable becomes testing, testing > becomes frozen, frozen becomes stable, period. And six months would > be a MAXIMUM, not the standard cycle. One year of built-in > obsolescence is still a lot.
Unfortunately, code has a nasty habit of being ready when it's ready, not when someone decrees that it should be ready. Going to a calendar-based release cycle would adversely affect stability. If you don't want to be running year-old software (with the latest security fixes backported), switch over to testing instead. It's both pretty solid and pretty recent. But if you want/need the absolute reliability of stable, that takes time. If it takes a year to produce that stability, then the code will be a year old when it's released and, short of spending lots of money to buy testing and bugfixing time, there's nothing anyone can do about it. -- That's not gibberish... It's Linux. - Byers, The Lone Gunmen Geek Code 3.12: GCS d? s+: a C++ UL++++$ P++>+++ L+++>++++ E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K w--- O M- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv+ b+ DI++++ D G e* h r y+
