On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:28:44PM -0800, Ken Teague wrote: > Barclay, Daniel wrote: > > [...] > > Doing it the second way does _not_ have to compromise any quality > > standards. > > (Why do you (seemingly) think it does?) > > Perhaps I wasn't understanding you correctly the first time around. > Perhaps I'm still not understanding you this time around. Nevertheless, > I'm only trying to help you out. If you don't want my help, I'll kindly > step to the side and see if anyone else wants to step up to this plate. >
Well, maybe I'll prove to be understanding neither of you, but the point seems to be that you can't 'force' the maturity of a package. Halving the seed rate in a field of wheat won't make the wheat ripen twice as fast. Chemicals can no doubt make wheat ripen a little faster and intense activity by developers can remove bugs a little faster, but bugs have to be found in the first place. The longer a package has been in use, the more bugs will be found and, hopefully, eliminated. If that's not a complete load of rubbish, quality will be improved by longer release cycles. Cheers, David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
