also sprach Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org [2009.08.08.1500 +0200]:
They are sticking to that promise. Of all the derivative
distributions out there, Ubuntu is the only one that actively, as
a matter of policy, does contribute back bugreports and patches.
They contribute, but they're far
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 20:07, Patrick Schoenfeldschoenf...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
THEY STEAL our packages
Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything
Mark Shuttleworth dijo [Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:37:04AM +0100]:
(...)
It would be substantially easier to collaborate on RC (and non-RC) bug
fixes where the base versions of major components were the same.
Umm... Real, hard RC bugs will be present on more than one release of
the same upstream
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:49:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Perhaps Ubuntu should correct it's web page, then, in light of
the apparent fact that automatic feeding of patches upstream is
not in fact reality?
Yes, I've forwarded this bug to the attention of the Ubuntu webmaster.
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:04:46AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm not sure whether this subthread is really going anywhere, given that it
seems to have devolved into a complaint about the handling of a particular
bug, and playing whack-a-mole on a public mailing list in response to
Werner Baumann wrote:
The two models as I can see them from the discussion so far:
Model 1:
Debian freezes in December
Debian developers concentrate on fixing RC bugs
Ubuntu developers concentrate on including newer versions of major
software packages
When the number of RC bugs in Debian
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:29:11AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm sorry that you have a negative impression of Ubuntu's relationship
with Debian, but there's plenty of data available that contradicts
your conclusion (including BTS reports that have been posted to
Steve Langasek wrote:
Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers contribute fixes
back to Debian today?
As security, contributing fixes back to Debian is not a product nor
a state, it's a process. We should all be interested in optimizing this
process further.
Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
...snip...
Instead of saying there's a bug that was badly handled, so we should
never collaborate better on anything, let's look for opportunities to
make things better. We have a good opportunity to make a profound
change in the way upstreams and distributions
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
THEY STEAL our packages
Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent
you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like that
in the discussion. It makes me sick and
* Moritz Muehlenhoff j...@inutil.org [2009-08-03 19:30]:
Aligning our releases with RHEL rather than with Ubuntu seems more
worthwhile to me. They have similar stabilisation lengths as we did
for previous releases and they're investing a lot of work into the
kernel, from which we could profit
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:04:12AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Yes, but OTOH we strongly support copyleft softwares versus the BSD-
like softwares, because we expect to have back the works and
because we expect to behave as a big community.
I agree with you, it is not thiefs, but
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:15:03PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de (03/08/2009):
Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees
want to ensure that Debian gets important things much much later than
Ubuntu.
Obviously false, see how (e)glibc
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:13:03PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
There seems to be an assumption here that Ubuntu would benefit from bugfixes
from Debian developers, but that the reverse would not be true. Is this
what you believe? Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:13:03PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
I rarely hear anything positive from Ubuntu, except that more and more people
who are active in Ubuntu realized that it is much better to do things in
Debian
directly.
IME the quality of interaction from Ubuntu is very variable
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Of course it would be nicer if patches were reported automatically to us.
This is by no means a universally held view within Debian. The current
approach of only pushing patches to Debian maintainers as manual bug
reports is a
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:17:01AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Of course it would be nicer if patches were reported automatically to us.
This is by no means a universally held view within Debian. The current
approach of
Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:13:03PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
I rarely hear anything positive from Ubuntu, except that more and more people
who are active in Ubuntu realized that it is much better to do things in
Debian
directly.
IME the quality of interaction from
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:04:12AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Yes, but OTOH we strongly support copyleft softwares versus the BSD-
like softwares, because we expect to have back the works and
because we expect to behave as a big community.
No we don't.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:44:58PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:51:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Also in many cases, Ubuntu and Debian teams can't fully collaborate
because they do not target the same upstream version, freezing at the same
time should make it
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:49:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
If you prefer to be automatically notified about all changes in Ubuntu, I
believe the PTS gives you an option to do this by subscribing to the
'derivatives' keyword. For my part,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:15:03PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de (03/08/2009):
Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees
want to ensure that Debian gets important things much much later than
Ubuntu.
Obviously false, see how (e)glibc
On Tue, Aug 04 2009, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm a little bothered by the lack of release team involvement in
the discussion, but I wonder if the reason isn't simply that it's
probably pretty hard for them to pick a way of responding that won't
be misinterpreted to fit folks predisposition to
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:28:18PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:15:03PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de (03/08/2009):
Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees
want to ensure that Debian gets important things
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:29:11AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm sorry that you have a negative impression of Ubuntu's relationship
with Debian, but there's plenty of data available that contradicts
your conclusion (including BTS reports that have been posted to this
very thread).
The
Teemu Likonen wrote:
On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
Probably not, but the release synchronization with
Steve Langasek wrote:
There seems to be an assumption here that Ubuntu would benefit from bugfixes
from Debian developers, but that the reverse would not be true. Is this
what you believe? Does that mean you don't think Ubuntu developers
contribute fixes back to Debian today?
While never
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 17:55, Anthony Townsa...@master.debian.org wrote:
Given the freeze-timeline proposed it could/should be. Ubuntu has its
DebianImportFreeze for karmic scheduled for June 25th; which should
translate for an LTS import freeze on December 25th-ish, shortly after
the Debian
[ Please note that I'm taking all my hats off for this post, especially ]
[ debian-release ones. ]
On 2009-08-03, Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote:
What I'm wondering is: why should *we* adapt to ubuntu? why was not
ubuntu in the first place to
On 2009-07-30, Teemu Likonen tliko...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
Probably not, but the
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
THEY STEAL our packages
Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent
you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like that
in the discussion. It makes me sick and wonder if I do invest my time in
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On 2009-07-30, Teemu Likonen tliko...@iki.fi wrote:
On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
Philipp Kern wrote:
But of course it could be more. Especially contributions from Canonical
employees doing stuff in main. (Some a tad neglecting their packages
in Debian IMHO...)
Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees want to
ensure that Debian gets important
On Mon, Aug 03 2009, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Aligning our releases with RHEL rather than with Ubuntu seems more
worthwhile to me. They have similar stabilisation lengths as we did
for previous releases and they're investing a lot of work into the
kernel, from which we could profit
On Mon, Aug 03 2009, Philipp Kern wrote:
[ Please note that I'm taking all my hats off for this post, especially ]
[ debian-release ones. ]
On 2009-08-03, Sandro Tosi mo...@debian.org wrote:
What I'm wondering is: why should *we* adapt to
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de (03/08/2009):
Ack ack ack. I even have the impression that the Canonical employees
want to ensure that Debian gets important things much much later than
Ubuntu.
Obviously false, see how (e)glibc maintainers are pushed by Ubuntu
people to get the next release ready,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 20:07, Patrick Schoenfeldschoenf...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
THEY STEAL our packages
Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent
you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 06:40:06PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
THEY STEAL our packages
Uarg. That sentence let me discard everything sensible/intelligent
you might have said in your mail. I often read sentences like that
in the
Patrick Schoenfeld schoenf...@debian.org (03/08/2009):
That is simply not true. It might be that Ubuntu doesn't give back as
much as Debian would like.
Or “as they pretend to” [1]:
| When a bug is reported in the Debian bug tracking system and then later
| fixed in Ubuntu, the fixes are often
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 08:42:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 31 July 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't believe the kind of coarse synchronization that's been proposed
for the releases would make Debian-Ubuntu crossgrades significantly
easier. Most of the local changes that Ubuntu
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 04:31:56PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2009-07-30, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
You seem to have been operating under a misconception that the *majority* of
packages in Ubuntu have been touched wrt Debian. They have not - the vast
majority of packages
On Wed, Jul 29 2009, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Sune Vuorela (nos...@vuorela.dk) wrote:
I'm hoping that we can convince the release team to change their mind.
I doubt you can, and I hope you don't. It could have been announced
better, but in general I think it's a good thing for Debian.
On Friday 31 July 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I don't believe the kind of coarse synchronization that's been proposed
for the releases would make Debian-Ubuntu crossgrades significantly
easier. Most of the local changes that Ubuntu has today would still
apply, and there are rebuilt binaries
On 2009-07-29, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote:
So the developers are then within their rights to ignore the
short first freeze, and work to release whenever the packages are
really ready.
Uh, that's what a subset of them always did, no? Like starting transitions
during
On 2009-07-30, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
You seem to have been operating under a misconception that the *majority* of
packages in Ubuntu have been touched wrt Debian. They have not - the vast
majority of packages in Ubuntu are unmodified Debian packages, as shown by
the graphs
There seem to be two quite different models about how synchronisation
of Debian and Ubuntu LTS is intended to work. I believe it would be
very helpful to know if there is any agreement with Ubuntu about this.
The two models as I can see them from the discussion so far:
Model 1:
Debian freezes in
Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze
again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to
be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian
in sync [1]:
| The LTS will be either 10.04 or 10.10 - based on the conversation
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:28:52PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
I also believe that December freeze is quite difficult for all parts
involved. Another team that will have bigger problems is the security
team but it is not yet clear how they will manage to support an extra
release.
Actually,
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze
again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to
be fine with delaying Ubuntu LTS by half a year to get Ubuntu and Debian
in sync [1]:
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
hard to make it look like that.
Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay
asynchronous with
* Marc Haber mh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de [2009-07-30 09:16]:
I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
hard to make it look like that.
In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16, Marc Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze
again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to
be fine with
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Marc
Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze
again in December 2011*? Mark Shuttleworth seems (at least seemed) to
be
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:58:30AM -0700, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Marc
Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:45:41AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
Why not freeze in June 2010 instead of December 2009 and then freeze
again in
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync
with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours.
I don't mind who changes the date for the other but I really don't
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37, Raphael Hertzoghert...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync
with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync
with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
so if they keep honouring publicly stating and recognizing
Debian as their upstream,
google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually
inside ubuntu.com.
Greetings
Marc
--
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16:26AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
hard to make it look like that.
In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
There's some (many) of us who feel that the great Debian culture is
irreplaceable, and therefore won't use Ubuntu as their primary OS. So
why worry about losing relevance.
Because if you lose relevance, you lose users (might them be individuals on
the desktop or
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11, Marc Habermh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:59:05AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
so if they keep honouring publicly stating and recognizing
Debian as their upstream,
google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11:12AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually
inside ubuntu.com.
Search better: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian .
The page is one link away from the main Ubuntu site (follow
philosophy).
FWIW,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:28:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 30/07/09 at 11:17 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
It *might* be that losing relevance on the desktop side is of little
importance (which I believe it is _not_), but if corporate entities turn to
use Ubuntu LTS because
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:28:01AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:11:12AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
google, debian site:ubuntu.com delivers _one_ hit that is actually
inside ubuntu.com.
Search better: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian .
That's
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:17, Didier 'OdyX' Rabouddid...@raboud.com wrote:
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
There's some (many) of us who feel that the great Debian culture is
irreplaceable, and therefore won't use Ubuntu as their primary OS. So
why worry about losing relevance.
Because if you
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07:58AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
We'll keep our user base
That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in
all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable?
You believe that Debian, releasing with approximately the same set of
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the
it's the principle behind “the combination of both is worth more that the
sum of individual parts”.
What kind
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
After the talk Bdale commented about the length of the freeze and the
made observation (actually had a complaint) that the length of the
freeze is something were not the release team, but the project at large
should ask itself what to do better.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:19:58AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
The problem of lenny's long freeze was in part that there was so few
people working on the release and on fixing RC bugs. And that
deficit also shows in the quality of lenny. If people feel that
flamewars are needed to keep
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:51, Raphael Hertzoghert...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in
all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable?
Why are you using Debian and not Ubuntu?
For me:
Marc Haber mh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Hi,
I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
hard to make it look like that.
In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:27, Julien BLACHEjbla...@debian.org wrote:
Marc Haber mh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Hi,
I don't think that we shouldn't time our releases according to what
Mark Shuttleworth says. We are not Ubuntu's slave even if they try
hard to make it look like that.
After one day and more of flaming about the subject, may I summarize - with my
John Doe Debian Developer hat on - what it seems a few points catched and
ask RMs about their thoughts on them? I woud prefer the project did
a little step forward instead of flaming and complaining only.
- A freeze
Hello,
On ketvirtadienis 30 Liepa 2009 11:37:46 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I don't mind who changes the date for the other but I really don't agree
that doing it is only for Ubuntu's advantage. Nobody in Debian would have
taken such a decision, we are Debian developers and have no interest in
Hello,
On ketvirtadienis 30 Liepa 2009 13:49:42 Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
After one day and more of flaming about the subject, may I summarize - with
my John Doe Debian Developer hat on - what it seems a few points catched
and ask RMs about their thoughts on them? I woud prefer the project
On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make them
feel that they are working for him, which can be a great
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 01:09:35PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
For three, what happened to getting the firmware issue resolved early in
squeeze's cycle [1]? It's evidently no longer early in squeeze's cycle,
so maybe I just somehow missed the decision on that...
[1]
On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2009-07-30 11:36 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Oh, and Debian got hundreds of active developers, and I doubt they'll
be running to Shuttleworth anytime soon.
Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make
them feel
Teemu Likonen wrote:
On 2009-07-30 13:12 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote:
Probably not, but the release synchronization with Ubuntu may make
them feel that they are working for him, which can be a great
demotivation.
That's why it would be interesting to hear some concrete ideas how
useful
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
+ Security fixes prepared for Ubuntu will be (sometimes ?) applicable
directly to Debian, which would be a reduction in workload for the
Debian Security team. (Or phrased differently: Debian and Ubuntu
security teams will be able to prepare
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Teemu Likonen wrote:
Debian
==
- The completely voluntary nature of the project does not really lend
itself to hard timelines. If it turns out on the planned date of the
freeze that there are still major issues open, we need to be flexible
enough to delay the
On 2009-07-30, Marc Haber mh+debian-proj...@zugschlus.de wrote:
I don't see the advantage for Debian short of probable ease of work
for the security team (which doesn't seem to have commented yet).
The synergy is negligable, since the most time-consuming elements (testing,
handling the buildds
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:49:48AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
Doesn't this imply that everyone who continues using Debian today does so
merely as an accident of the release schedule and the particular set of
packages that land in a given Debian release?
That and the fact that upgrades
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote:
So let's just freeze late in the early/middle spring of 2010 this time and
aim
for Dec 2011 freeze next time. If you disagree with that, please enlighten me
why Debian needs to rush _this time_. If synchronization is so badly wanted
for the
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
Both the Etch and Lenny releases did clearly show this, and the success of
both releases (Etch more than Lenny IMO) is largely thanks to flexible
starts of the incremental freeze stages.
The staged freeze has been a major pain for anyone working on the
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
Both the Etch and Lenny releases did clearly show this, and the
success of both releases (Etch more than Lenny IMO) is largely thanks
to flexible starts of the incremental freeze stages.
The staged
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 03:24:03PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote:
So let's just freeze late in the early/middle spring of 2010 this time and
aim
for Dec 2011 freeze next time. If you disagree with that, please enlighten
me
why Debian needs
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
Debian stable Ubuntu LTS
2 year rel cycle 2 year rel cycle
3 years security 3 years desktop security, 5 years server
guaranteed freeze dateguaranteed release date
support for all pkgs
saying that that was the fact which make them to take such a
decision, but I can't see what the reasons were. I only read a message saying
Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes.
IMO, this time-based release will have a very important impact in how Debian is
seen either by our users
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now
It has not.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:07:39PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm not aware of any apples-to-apples comparisons of Debian's and Ubuntu's
quality; but personally I haven't seen much evidence that Debian's
is significantly superior (NB: I haven't used Ubuntu LTS personally,
though). The
Hi,
Teemu Likonen schrieb:
Debian
==
[...]
+ [Please invent more concrete benefits for Debian developers and
users.]
+ Settling on the same upstream versions will help maintaining them
over the long period of time, so freeing valuable developer time
from debian
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now
It has not.
How do you call what we have done since then if not working? I mean,
we have our
On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync
with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours.
I don't mind who
On, 07/30/2009 10:50 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now
It has not.
How do you call what we have done since
On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07:58AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
We'll keep our user base
That's what I doubt. Ubuntu LTS will be better than Debian stable in
all aspects, why should anybody continue using Debian stable?
You believe that Debian,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 17:20:28 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34:05 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
I think if Debian has worked more than 13 years as it is right now
It has not.
How do you call
On Mi, 29 Jul 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
The developers have had the opportunity and still have the opportunity
to get stuff done before the release. It's true that developers should
probably consider to already be careful about what to upload, but there
is still opportunity to do changes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:17:46AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I spend a log of time with my upstreams, and I am trying to
implement the philosophy that any change in my packages be trated as a
bug (whether or not it is in the bts), and sent upstream. I use
upstream bug trackers,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:05:13PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Mi, 29 Jul 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
The developers have had the opportunity and still have the opportunity
to get stuff done before the release. It's true that developers should
probably consider to already be careful
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
