Hi Jonathan!
You might remember my questions from last year[0] regarding the release
process and Xouvert. As I indicated to you, I do not feel your answers
were in any satisfactory: I still feel quite strongly that the 0.2
release of Xouvert never occurred, and that the 0.1 release was a month
lat
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Correction: they *claim* they will support each release for 18
> months. I can not only do that, I can call forth spirits from the
> vasty deep[0].
Why, so can I.
(cue: threadmorph to stock sexist language debate).
--
Henning Makholm
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:42:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Ubuntu supports each release for 18
> months, even though they release every 6 months.
Correction: they *claim* they will support each release for 18
months. I can not only do that, I can call forth spirits from the
vasty deep[0].
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it's quite obvious (to me at least) that 6 month is not suitable for=20
> debian. but 1 year seems fine. and one upgrade per year seems fair to=20
> me. isn't it ?
For enterprise users? Probably not. RHEL releases are supposed to occur
about every 18 m
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:42:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It's fair to ask users to upgrade, but it's not fair to ask them to do so
> every 6 months. Many organisations will want to spend 6 months testing a
> new release before rolling it out. I've no objection to releases every 6
> month
Le Mardi 8 Mars 2005 16:42, Matthew Garrett a ÃcritÂ:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > btw, for the security team, I think it's fair to ask users to
> > upgrade=20 their distribution. If we don't assume that, then why
> > don't we support=20 debian 1.0 anymore ???
>
> It's fair to a
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> btw, for the security team, I think it's fair to ask users to upgrade=20
> their distribution. If we don't assume that, then why don't we support=20
> debian 1.0 anymore ???
It's fair to ask users to upgrade, but it's not fair to ask them to
do so ever
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:46:45PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > A 6 month release cycle would not go down well with many users unless we
> > have a much longer support cycle. How have you ensured that the security
> > team will be able to support 3 or 4 releases simulta
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I committed to working toward a six-month cycle. As DPL, I have no
> > desire to act unilaterally. Once a sufficient number of us are inspired
> > with the right vision, things will just happen. As DPL, my job is to
> >
Le Mardi 8 Mars 2005 13:26, Matthew Garrett a ÃcritÂ:
> Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I committed to working toward a six-month cycle. As DPL, I have no
> > desire to act unilaterally. Once a sufficient number of us are
> > inspired with the right vision, things will just happen
Jonathan Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I committed to working toward a six-month cycle. As DPL, I have no
> desire to act unilaterally. Once a sufficient number of us are inspired
> with the right vision, things will just happen. As DPL, my job is to
> inspire-with-vision. And that is s
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:22:09AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:19:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Since we still have a previous stable release, the six
> month release cycle means our current stable release will be released as
> the new release if necessary. In
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:19:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Please explain how you reconcile this claim with the periodic
announcements from the release team stating that Debian is currently
missing key bits of architecture that prevent us from releasing sarge.
The OpenBSD six-month cycle is cl
Hi Jonathan,
In your platform, you write:
> With Debian's archive pool, we always have something to release. We will not
> need to compromise our high standards in any way. If new software isn't
> ready to go in the stable release, it just won't go in. With a regular
> release cycle, this isn't a
14 matches
Mail list logo
