also sprach Andre Felipe Machado
[2009.08.17.1457 +0200]:
> Please, forgive my limited english language skill. I hope clarify
> the subject a bit more. By no means I intended to discount Debian
> contributors, but to ADD more skilled people from the Canonical
> team to Debian efforts.
I think th
Hello,
Please, forgive my limited english language skill. I hope clarify the subject a
bit more.
By no means I intended to discount Debian contributors, but to ADD more skilled
people from the Canonical team to Debian efforts.
There is (still) a limited supply of skilled people around the world on
2009/8/16 Andre Felipe Machado :
> - Given that Debian Project has around 2000 commited devs and
last I checked, that number was about 400 DD's who were actually active
> [0] ([Off Topic and not deserving answer as it is an unqualified
> suggestion]: Maybe, Canonical could be improve margins if U
also sprach Andre Felipe Machado
[2009.08.16.1915 +0200]:
> After this first round trip, the whole process would be evaluated and
> adjusted. Maybe cancelled or broadned. But without trying with a small
> group of highly user visible packages, we will not know.
I agree very much with your propos
Hello,
Having read all thread, and letting some time to calm down the subject,
I would like to suggest a few points, presuming that synchronizing could
be done in a way in benefit of both projects. (please, forgive my poor
english skill, if you have doubts, please ask for detailment).
- Given that
Vipin Mathew dijo [Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:24:21AM -0700]:
> mozilla has shown how we can build something which is in every way
> better than the closed ones by effective collaboration. if we all
> come together we could create another great brand called linux. n we
> can win. a win for all the com
I admit that i m no developer who has a strong word in a debate. i m just an
average joe end user who just wish that opensource software becomes better. if
opensource wins, it would be a win for the community. an evidence that even in
this world filled with walls, men can still cooperate breakin
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Of course, many upstreams will not accept this, as it breaks their
> workflow and might just feel outside influence from people they don't
> care too much about (and I'm not meaning the Linux desktops, as they
> obviously care about Linux distributions, but mainly OS-agnostic
>
On Wed, Aug 12 2009, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava dijo [Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:08:13AM -0500]:
>> Based on Debian's last two releases, I think we have a 22 month
>> release cycle going; stretching it to 24 years is not a big
>> deal. Speaking for myself, I think have a predict
Hi,
No, not quoting a bit. And answering to the top of the thread. Over a
week old, also. And even more, not having read a majority of the
replies. Still.
Mark, I think you are personally among the best positioned people to
be heard on this topic - And your goal is quite worthy. However, I
think
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:08:13AM -0500]:
> Based on Debian's last two releases, I think we have a 22 month
> release cycle going; stretching it to 24 years is not a big
> deal. Speaking for myself, I think have a predictable freeze date,
> every two years, is a goo
Le mardi 11 août 2009 à 02:48 +0300, Martin-Éric Racine a écrit :
> > It is my opinion that freezing after GNOME releases (and gets into
> > testing) would be better for Debian. This means either April or
> > October, depending on which GNOME release we want to ship.
>
> I think that this point t
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:26:07 -0300, Marga wrote:
> This has been one of the main concerns of the December freeze, apart
> from the fact that we wouldn't meet our release goals, that you are
> suggesting how to solve. Ubuntu has shown in the past a tendency to
> ship with the latest versions of soft
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Matthias Andree wrote:
> i. if you can't deal with a bug, tell somebody who can. Leaving it to rot
> is going to drive users away.
Leaving bugs to rot happens everywhere, in various upstreams, in
Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and probably other distributions. Th
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> As long as it is (partly?) based on the fact that bugs will be fixed by
> Debian for free so Ubuntu can just reuse the bugfixes and get the money
> for them, I think it should be discussed.
People keep saying things like this, but no one I know who's running
Ubuntu is pay
On 2009-08-08, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Wrong. Several people tried to contact Matthias on various ways and never got
> a
> reply. He also completely failed to communicate with those people who maintain
> most Python related packages on Debian, except during Debconf. This is *NOT*
> the
> way how
To come back to Debian
Luk Claes wrote:
> Hmm, AFAICT python2.6 did not really happen in Debian yet because
> Mathias is trying to not continue with the existing hacks that have
> major issues when upgrading and wants to have a clean solution.
The only hack is the broken piece of python-centr
Luk Claes wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>
>>> what can happen is that he prepare a rough solution, sent to debian in
>>> a sense "hey, take it, I've done my work, it's an ugly hack but I have
>>> no time to prepare an elegant solution; Now I got to go, I have
>>> another 1000
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
>> what can happen is that he prepare a rough solution, sent to debian in
>> a sense "hey, take it, I've done my work, it's an ugly hack but I have
>> no time to prepare an elegant solution; Now I got to go, I have
>> another 1000 things to do". I'm not
Sandro Tosi wrote:
> what can happen is that he prepare a rough solution, sent to debian in
> a sense "hey, take it, I've done my work, it's an ugly hack but I have
> no time to prepare an elegant solution; Now I got to go, I have
> another 1000 things to do". I'm not sure it will happen, but I fe
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:55:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:38:56 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>>> How does Ubuntu want to do a proper (commercial) support for their packages
>>> if
>>> they don't even have the time/manpower to take care o
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 00:30, Michael Bienia wrote:
> On 2009-08-06 16:25:47 +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
> [I'm Ubuntu developer (MOTU to be more specific), so I might be biased]
>
> I certainly won't excuse some things that are not happening, I know that
> Ubuntu needs to improve in some aspec
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 18:37, Luk Claes wrote:
> It was and still is not meant as a decision, but as a proposal though
> the announcement said otherwise due to miscommunication from my side
> which I cannot undo unfortunately.
>
> I'm not convinced that we will be able to freeze in December anymore
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Raphael Geissert (05/08/2009):
>>
>>> Like some people said during Debconf: "freezing in December" doesn't
>>> necessarily mean freezing the first day or even the first week of
>>> December; the 31 is still December, which means there are 30
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> If the freeze date is well known in advance the question becomes moot
>> unless some maintainer wants to work against the freeze AFAICS. Having a
>> known freeze date is meant to help everyone to be able to plan better
>> and refrain from doing high imp
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:55:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:38:56 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > How does Ubuntu want to do a proper (commercial) support for their packages
> > if
> > they don't even have the time/manpower to take care of their bugs? Taking
> >
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Raphael Geissert (05/08/2009):
>
>> Like some people said during Debconf: "freezing in December" doesn't
>> necessarily mean freezing the first day or even the first week of
>> December; the 31 is still December, which means there are 30 days to
>> decide many things, i
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:38:56 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Michael Bienia wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry about this but the amount of bugs flowing in into Ubuntu is
> > bigger that can be handled by the available man power, being it
> > developer or community members.
>
> How does Ubuntu want to do
Luk Claes wrote:
> If the freeze date is well known in advance the question becomes moot
> unless some maintainer wants to work against the freeze AFAICS. Having a
> known freeze date is meant to help everyone to be able to plan better
> and refrain from doing high impact changes right before the
Michael Bienia wrote:
> I'm sorry about this but the amount of bugs flowing in into Ubuntu is
> bigger that can be handled by the available man power, being it
> developer or community members.
How does Ubuntu want to do a proper (commercial) support for their packages if
they don't even have the
also sprach Steve Langasek [2009.08.07.0012 +0200]:
> > Sure, it has compatibility addons, but primarily it conflicts
> > with sysvinit and encourages vendors to provide upstart control
> > files for packages, instead of init.d scripts.
>
> Why in the world does it matter whether it's a compat la
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-08-06, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The apparently partly-automated bug reports from what appears to be
>> your live CD system are particularly bad. Many of them are automated
>> dumps of translated install logs with translated error messages, which
>> drastically limit
On 2009-08-06, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The apparently partly-automated bug reports from what appears to be your
> live CD system are particularly bad. Many of them are automated dumps of
> translated install logs with translated error messages, which drastically
> limits the number of people who ca
Am 06.08.2009, 22:22 Uhr, schrieb Pierre Habouzit :
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 04:25:47PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
[Please Cc: replies back to me, I'm not on debian-proj...@]
FWIW, this is an excellent mail, and I share many of your opinions and
hindsights here.
Note that by your count Deb
"Michael Bienia" writes:
> I'm sorry about this but the amount of bugs flowing in into Ubuntu is
> bigger that can be handled by the available man power, being it
> developer or community members.
> Bug #20 was filed March 2008
> Bug #30 was filed Nov 2008
> Bug #40 was filed Jul 200
On 2009-08-06 16:25:47 +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
[I'm Ubuntu developer (MOTU to be more specific), so I might be biased]
I certainly won't excuse some things that are not happening, I know that
Ubuntu needs to improve in some aspects. But realising this and get
things improved are still not t
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:50:36PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> … and all of the efforts of the LSB to standardise sysvinit so that
> every vendor can drop init.d scripts into place and expect them to
> work, are undermined by upstart.
Right, just like the efforts of the LSB to standardize a pa
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 04:25:47PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> [Please Cc: replies back to me, I'm not on debian-proj...@]
FWIW, this is an excellent mail, and I share many of your opinions and
hindsights here.
Note that by your count Debian isn't always a good player with
upstreams, I'm pret
"When I look over the commentary on debian-devel and in
debbugs and on #debian-devel, I see a lot of familiar names from Ubuntu,
especially on the deep, hard problems that need solving at the core. I'm
proud of that."
There is unnecessary incompatibility between Ubuntu and Debian. Their
incompatib
also sprach Matthias Andree [2009.08.06.1625 +0200]:
> Ubuntu has some interesting approaches, such as Upstart. However, these are
> incomplete, underdocumented, and in consequence half-baked. If you care about
> the end user experience, you've got to bite the bullet and not only lick it.
> Discus
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Discussing the validity of security policies is not the point of this
> thread, so let's leave it at that, please.
It is exactly the point of this thread if you use it as an argument
against a common freeze cycle.
> This was only an example, there are others, nitpicking
> o
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 03:18:08PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:08:26AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Or is some incremental freeze still supposed to happen?
>
> During the talk/discussion at DebConf, IIRC Luk stated that
> incremental freezes had a negative eff
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-08-06, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> And this is precisely why it was asked that for squeeze, frozen and
>> testing remain different suites during the freeze. Currently I have no
>> idea of whether this will happen.
>
> While I see the point of this I don't know if I
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 18:01 +0200 schrieb Marc Haber:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 04:25:47PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > GRUB 2 is going to be another opportunity where Ubuntu can prove
> > either useful or detrimental to your stated goals: invest time to
> > polish it and contribute b
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 04:25:47PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> GRUB 2 is going to be another opportunity where Ubuntu can prove
> either useful or detrimental to your stated goals: invest time to
> polish it and contribute back to the upstream; or use it raw as it is
> and leave the user with t
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> The proposal as I understood it was that in December, the key component
> maintainers / release managers from all interested distributions would
> discuss, on a public mailing list, their plans for the base versions of
> those components in
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:21:38 +0100
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Hi folks
Hi there
> We're already seeing a growing trend towards cadence in free software,
> which I think is a wonderful move. Here, we are talking about
> elevating that to something that the world has never seen in
> proprietary s
[Please Cc: replies back to me, I'm not on debian-proj...@]
Mark,
I think you have a biassed view in your role as Ubuntu maintainer.
This isn't bad in itself, but it needs to be written so that positions are
clear.
My position is: I'm currently using openSUSE for my development, with occasional
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 03:18:08PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> During the talk/discussion at DebConf, IIRC Luk stated that
> incremental freezes had a negative effect because for many developers
> it was not clear what/when was going to be frozen. The logical
> consequence drawn there (again
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:08:26AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Or is some incremental freeze still supposed to happen?
During the talk/discussion at DebConf, IIRC Luk stated that
incremental freezes had a negative effect because for many developers
it was not clear what/when was going to be fr
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:21:49PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Luk Claes (06/08/2009):
> > If the freeze date is well known in advance the question becomes moot
> > unless some maintainer wants to work against the freeze AFAICS. Having
> > a known freeze date is meant to help everyone to be ab
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:52:10AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I think it's the job of something like the LSB to ensure a necessary
> baseline across distros on which vendors can build.
Well, maybe; however the LSB is *very* baseline, so not very useful.
Besides, it is heavily geared towards
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:49:37PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:02:59PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > I am failing to accept that vendors need to use those very specific
> > things in their software. just like I doubt that people need IE-HTML
> > to make their si
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:02:59PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Pierre Habouzit [2009.08.06.1104 +0200]:
> > You're comparing apples and oranges here, for HTML is a standard,
> > and theoretically, following the standard is enough (and even that
> > is probably -- and sadly -- a fal
Luk Claes (06/08/2009):
> If the freeze date is well known in advance the question becomes moot
> unless some maintainer wants to work against the freeze AFAICS. Having
> a known freeze date is meant to help everyone to be able to plan
> better and refrain from doing high impact changes right befo
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Raphael Geissert (05/08/2009):
>> Like some people said during Debconf: "freezing in December" doesn't
>> necessarily mean freezing the first day or even the first week of
>> December; the 31 is still December, which means there are 30 days to
>> decide many things, if nec
also sprach Pierre Habouzit [2009.08.06.1104 +0200]:
> You're comparing apples and oranges here, for HTML is a standard,
> and theoretically, following the standard is enough (and even that
> is probably -- and sadly -- a fallacy).
LSB is growing to be just that, but it won't stand a chance if
pe
On 2009-08-06, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> And this is precisely why it was asked that for squeeze, frozen and
> testing remain different suites during the freeze. Currently I have no
> idea of whether this will happen.
While I see the point of this I don't know if I would be happy. If people
just
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:52:10AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Pierre Habouzit [2009.08.05.2333 +0200]:
> > But speaking from my experience as an employee of a software editor, I
> > can tell that the distribution diversity is a huge problem when it comes
> > to distributing our wo
Julien BLACHE writes:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Julien BLACHE writes:
>>> A time-based freeze could mean for some teams that they'll have to
>>> stop work basically for months to a year.
>> Exaggeration, -1.
> Excuse me, what? This is exactly what happened for this past freeze,
Some teams h
Mark Shuttleworth schreef:
> I think most are waiting to see if Debian and Ubuntu can do this. If we
> can, I am very confident we will get a group of other distributions
> participating in the version harmonisation discussions in the first
> round. To win Novell we would have to actually demonstr
Le jeudi 06 août 2009 à 08:08 +0200, Julien BLACHE a écrit :
> >>A time-based freeze could mean for some teams that they'll have to
> >>stop work basically for months to a year.
> >
> > Exaggeration, -1.
>
> Excuse me, what? This is exactly what happened for this past freeze,
> so you can take tha
also sprach Pierre Habouzit [2009.08.05.2333 +0200]:
> But speaking from my experience as an employee of a software editor, I
> can tell that the distribution diversity is a huge problem when it comes
> to distributing our work. If your client use a Ubuntu LTS, a RHEL, a
> SuSE or worst for some,
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:51:08PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Pierre Habouzit]
> > It yields a really costly entry point to target "Linux" as a
> > platform, and it's exactly why most Software Vendors target "RHEL"
> > and not "Linux". And that's part of the reason[1] why most of our
> > c
"Jesús M. Navarro" wrote:
Hi,
>> That's exactly my point. We suck at freezing.
>
> The problem is not "we suck at freezing". Quite on the contrary I think
I should have written "we suck at operating during the freeze" or
something alike, that was a bit of a bad shorthand :)
> Debian develope
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hi,
>>A time-based freeze could mean for some teams that they'll have to
>>stop work basically for months to a year.
>
> Exaggeration, -1.
Excuse me, what? This is exactly what happened for this past freeze,
so you can take that back, kthxbye.
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE - De
"Leo \"costela\" Antunes" wrote:
Hi,
> Using two different versions of software is IMO no boon to security for
> a series of reasons:
Discussing the validity of security policies is not the point of this
thread, so let's leave it at that, please.
> But even if I'm wrong - which I could easily
Peter Samuelson wrote:
Hi,
> I still don't understand what is supposed to be "new" about the
> time-based freezes. The Release Team was giving us projected freeze
> dates all through the lenny release. For example,
Same here. Either things are evolving and the proposal is being
down-moded, or
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Hi,
Quoting out of context and generalizing from there, way to go.
>> In the free software world, the diversity we have today, which is
>> partly due to unaligned releases from the major vendors, is an asset.
>
> Security-wise ? Let's admit that, I don't want to fight on
[Pierre Habouzit]
> It yields a really costly entry point to target "Linux" as a
> platform, and it's exactly why most Software Vendors target "RHEL"
> and not "Linux". And that's part of the reason[1] why most of our
> customers are using RHELs: software vendors only certify their stuff
> for RHE
Hi, Julien:
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 22:09:04 Julien BLACHE wrote:
> "Jesús M. Navarro" wrote:
>
[...]
> >
> > Why? I really don't see your point unless you mean for the packager
> > under current conditions where no real branches are allowed on Debian
> > (but the
>
> That's exactly my poi
Hi, Mark:
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 23:28:19 Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
[...]
> I think most are waiting to see if Debian and Ubuntu can do this. If we
> can, I am very confident we will get a group of other distributions
> participating in the version harmonisation discussions in the first
> roun
Raphael Geissert (05/08/2009):
> Like some people said during Debconf: "freezing in December" doesn't
> necessarily mean freezing the first day or even the first week of
> December; the 31 is still December, which means there are 30 days to
> decide many things, if necessary.
Without having to re
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> To be fair, I've not been doing a good enough job of talking with the
> project as a whole lately. I *have* been talking to a lot of people
> inside and outside Debian about things in that time, but a combination
> of a very busy day job and a new girlfriend have been keepin
Hi, Jan:
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:53:20 Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
[...]
>
> I'm interested in the reactions of other distributions. Are they likely
> to change their release cycle to fit yours? Or would you be willing to
> change Ubuntu's release dates if SuSE proposed LTS releases to come out
Hi, Marc:
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 22:24:56 Marc Haber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:32:36PM +0200, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
> > In other words: freeze on december the first doesn't mean that if, say,
> > Gnome will publish it's new shiny 1.2 version by december the 15, the
> > las
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 08:44:29PM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>> The proposal as I understood it was that in December, the key component
>> maintainers / release managers from all interested distributions would
>> discuss, on a public mailing list, their plans for the ba
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 08:42:03PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>
>I think we'll lose part of the "we release when it's ready" philosophy
>(that our RMs seem to despise so much). Because part of this is to
>freeze when it's ready.
If you don't have an idea of what to target for your release (or whe
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 02:07:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Julien BLACHE writes:
>> Marc Haber wrote:
>
>>> [1] and I am actually quite disturbed that Mark gets to talk to the
>>> DPL more often than Debian does
>
>> Bah, journalists get to talk to him even more often, especially the
>> hacks
[Julien BLACHE]
> I think we'll lose part of the "we release when it's ready"
> philosophy (that our RMs seem to despise so much). Because part of
> this is to freeze when it's ready.
I still don't understand what is supposed to be "new" about the
time-based freezes. The Release Team was giving
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> That'd break common enterprise setups like having 2 firewalls running
> different distributions. Not sure how you get around that once all the
> distros commonly used/accepted in the enterprise world agree on
> shipping the same version of server software.
Using two differen
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:30:33PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> In the free software world, the diversity we have today, which is
> partly due to unaligned releases from the major vendors, is an asset.
Security-wise ? Let's admit that, I don't want to fight on that point,
even if I think it's not
Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> I understand you've been talking to other distributions as well about
> syncing releases (or freezes) in order to ship same versions of major
> system components. Now, much of the discussion here is about the actual
> dates, i.e. the possible freeze in a few month as well as
Noah Meyerhans wrote:
>> I think it's reasonable to believe it would be easier to get [upstream]
>> attention about a version that *many* distributions adopted.
>>
>
> Additionally, even if upstream isn't willing to provide any help to
> distros shipping what they consider to be a "stale" vers
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 08:44:29PM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
>> My expectation is that Debian will want to have more flexibility in how
>> long the release is baked than Ubuntu would normally give itself. My
>> hope is that we can agree on a GNOME and KDE version, and
Julien BLACHE writes:
> Marc Haber wrote:
>> [1] and I am actually quite disturbed that Mark gets to talk to the
>> DPL more often than Debian does
> Bah, journalists get to talk to him even more often, especially the
> hacks at The Register. I learned quite a few things by reading papers
> on
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Yes, I would have to agree with your point - having more distributions
> on the same base version of something like Apache or OpenSSH does
> increase the risk of a compromise being systemic rather than limited to
> a particular vendor. The other side to the coin, though
Marc Haber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:32:36PM +0200, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
>
>> In other words: freeze on december the first doesn't mean that if, say,
>> Gnome
>> will publish it's new shiny 1.2 version by december the 15, the last beta
>> should have to be included, but t
Marc Haber wrote:
> [1] and I am actually quite disturbed that Mark gets to talk to the
> DPL more often than Debian does
Bah, journalists get to talk to him even more often, especially the
hacks at The Register. I learned quite a few things by reading papers
on The Register. Disturbing, indeed.
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> You are on a fight against proprietary software (you made that clear
> through your wording in your first mail). One of the issues with
> proprietary platforms is that everyone running a given platform runs
> the same security holes.
>
> Now, that obviously applies equally if
Le mercredi 05 août 2009 à 20:25 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth a écrit :
> At the micro-level, across the long tail of thousands of packages, I
> don't expect there to be detailed coordination through a process like
> this. The main benefit would come from the smaller set of core
> infrastructure packag
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 08:44:29PM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> My expectation is that Debian will want to have more flexibility in how
> long the release is baked than Ubuntu would normally give itself. My
> hope is that we can agree on a GNOME and KDE version, and that Debian
> will thus ben
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 08:44:29PM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > If Debian commits to a December freeze, would that mean that Ubuntu
> > commits to releasing 10.04 with KDE 4.3 (already released) and [...]
> The proposal as I understood it was that in December, th
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:47:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
> > At least Debian has epically failed in "wide communication" of this
> > decision by first putting out a press release before informing the
> > community itself.
>
> Which, of course, is not Ubuntu's fault. Pro
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:32:36PM +0200, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
> In other words: freeze on december the first doesn't mean that if, say, Gnome
> will publish it's new shiny 1.2 version by december the 15, the last beta
> should have to be included, but that the december version will ship
also sprach Manoj Srivastava [2009.08.05.1708 +0200]:
> I do have objections to starting that with a foreshortened
> release cycle, and while I am neutral about December as a freeze month
> in general, I suspect that the the actual date should come after
> negotiating with major compon
"Jesús M. Navarro" wrote:
Hi,
>> I think we'll lose part of the "we release when it's ready" philosophy
>> (that our RMs seem to despise so much). Because part of this is to
>> freeze when it's ready.
>
> Not at all if done properly. Freeze on a date simply means that what it's
> ready on that
Hi Mark,
I apologize if this was already said somewhere; somehow I've got lost in
this hundreds of mails... :)
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:48:06PM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> No, as I wrote separately, this is more about signalling an emerging cadence
> across multiple distributions. For man
Hi Marga
Margarita Manterola wrote:
> If Debian commits to a December freeze, would that mean that Ubuntu
> commits to releasing 10.04 with KDE 4.3 (already released) and GNOME
> 2.28 (to be released in a few months), instead of KDE 4.4 (to be
> released in January) and GNOME 2.30 (to be released
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:48:06PM +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> >> If upstream knows, for example, that MANY distributions will be
> >> shipping a particular version of their code and supporting it for
> >> several years (in fact, if they can sit down with those distributions
> >> and make
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
