<quote who="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> > 1. Against traditional conservativism, 2.4 goes into unstable 'tomorrow', > best-case being it all goes in together after being quickly trialled for > each arch in experimental
(I wouldn't be horrified if this happened, it seems like a sane way to go about it if no one is concerned with having a stable 2.2 backup plan.) > 2. It takes some time to iron out non-stability related things like package > Replaces: and Depends: lines, or fixing transition scripts for (a) 1.4 > users and/or (b) 2.2 users > 3. Meanwhile hell freezes over and gcc/glibc are able to go into testing, > and 2.2 would have gone into testing except it's been replaced by 2.4 which > is not ready for 'testing'. > 4. sarge is released with 1.4 desktop or delayed until 2.4 is ready? That's my worst fear. :-) Some of the 'soft' issues that may be encountered: Debian version upgrade issues, software stability (we say it's stable, but now users have their hands on it...), packaging, portability, user upgrade issues, and some more I was thinking about last night but forgot. ;-) I can understand the "to heck with it, fuck waiting for glibc to be sorted out" POV, but I feel that having a stable 2.x-based backup plan is hugely important. If the shit hits the fan, would it be worse to ship with 1.4 or 2.2? :-) - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/ On a clear day, I bet you can really see the class struggle from that penthouse of yours.
