Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2005 07:43 schrieb Steve Langasek: > I'm also not really convinced that a 12-month release cycle is actually a > good idea at this point -- in terms of either setting believable > expectations, or what users of stable actually want (clearly anyone who > stuck with woody for three years and is now upgrading to sarge doesn't see > quick release cycles as a sticking point), or having a reasonable > development cycle that lets us advance etch to where we want it to be after > sarge having been largely frozen for the past year.
I totally agree. Long release cycles with continued security support is a major asset for many people using debian. Together with a security supported testing distribution for the more fresh meat demanding desktop users we can cover a very braod user base. However there is one thing which is problematic about our long stable release cycles: New hardware is often unsupported because our stable kernels are so horribly outdated. I heard from many people who have several debian servers running that this is the major drawback of stable. I would love to see kernel updates for stable. Regards, Sebastian -- PGP-Key: http://www.mmweg.rwth-aachen.de/~sebastian.ley/public.key Fingerprint: A46A 753F AEDC 2C01 BE6E F6DB 97E0 3309 9FD6 E3E6 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
