On 2010-06-16 7:52 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > The point is that waiting a few days or weeks after a release for the > other guinea pigs to find the problems doesn't always guarantee you > won't run into a bug, as I describe above.
True, of course... I think babies should be required to have 'There are *no* guarantees in life, with one possible exception: you will die some day.' stamped on their foreheads so they'd see it every time they looked in a mirror. ;) > 1.2.10 had been out for quite some time, months IIRC, before Debian > had a Lenny backport of 1.2.10 available which, I installed as soon > as it hit the FTP. I found problems and reported them. This was many > weeks or months after the general release of 1.2.10 IIRC. Yes - iirc though, yours was a corner case for some reason? > I actually would prefer a rolling release system for some things. > The problem as I see it with Debian is they support so darn many > architectures the sheer weight of compiling all the packages and what > not prevents them from doing anything stable quickly. Gentoo supports just as many: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions#Architecture_support > Debian Stable has been averaging about 2 years between releases. Two > years is a _LONG_ damn time to wait for a new rev of say, Dovecot. I know... imo, a formal process for nominating certain critical applications - like postfix, dovecot, etc - for upgrading to stable would be a good thing. How often does a postfix update require an update to gcc or other system libs? > What's the ETA for the first stable release of Dovecot 2.0? Less > than 6 months? Only Timo knows, but just from past experience, yeah, I'd say less... -- Best regards, Charles
