On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:16, Marc Haber<[email protected]> 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 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 that >> | is going on right now between Debian and Ubuntu. > > 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 > accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync > with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours. > > Our 18-to-24-month release cycle was a nice vehicle to stay > asynchronous with Ubuntu, which _I_ consider a desireable feature to > prevent Debian from perishing. We are not only major supplier to > Ubuntu, we have our end customers ourselves. I'd prefer that it stayed > that way.
Absolutely +1 -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
