>> No, the project DID NOT decide it, the release team did, and the >> project has to accept it; there's a lot of difference. > No, the Release Team proposed a plan. The project is free to accept or > refuse the plan. Of course refusing the plan will have its consequences > within the Release Team as well as within the project.
So you basically try to suppress all discussion by issuing an "eat this or get another release team"? >> and what are the real advantages of this? I saw none in this announce. > The main advantage of a time based freeze would be that developers have > a clear idea about when the cutoff is for new features and when the > period of stabilising to a release starts. This should give developers a > better chance to plan and more responsibility in how they want to > support their packages. I don't think anyone is arguing against the time based freeze way of doing things. The arguments go against the way you announced this *and* the extremely short timeframe you leave the project to develop its distribution, thus limiting squeeze to be just a lenny point release, compared to what we had in prior releases. >> if time-based is REALLY needed, why then not "freeze on even Dec and >> release on Spring on odd years"? this will allow the current release >> cycle to have enough time to achieve something, while letting >> time-based proposers happy. > The main reason is that we now have the momentum to try a time based > freeze and that delaying the freeze would cause developers to 'forget' > about what a time based freeze is about. Sorry, you are happily destroying the momentum for a lot of people in core and large teams. >> should we remember here that lenny freeze took +6 months? > Note that how long the freeze takes is the responsibility of all > developers as the most important measure (RC bugs) can be influenced by > everyone. And thats why the Release Team should gather the developers behind them, not in front against them. :) > Not at all. The Release Team proposed a plan and it was welcomed during > the team's keynote at DebConf. But your and others input is very much > appreciated. It was welcomed by how many people? A dozen? Uh. > The announcement was made to be sure that press coverage would not > differ from the actual message and confuse people. It seems it has not > reached that goal completely, though the intentions were good. s/completly/at all/. Really, the press is *unimportant* compared to communication *within* the project. We are not a company which income depending on them. If the press is dumb enough to take a story out of a non-announce list, then fine, idiots everywhere. But that shouldn't have stopped you from talking to *the* *project* first, instead of to press monkeys (our press@ not meant with that). -- bye, Joerg Some NM: Debian is mostly about free keysigning^Wspeech. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
