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
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
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.
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
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
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 every 6
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
months
7 matches
Mail list logo
