Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We wanted to freeze potato last year but had no working boot-floppies > handy. Only very few people have worked on it.
This is partially true but not quite true. I hope I don't sound defensive, but it's my opinion that bf on its own was not a major delay factor. Maybe the release manager would have another impression though. To cite some details defending this position: By the time of code freeze, we had already had 4 iterations of boot-floppies; contrasted with 2.1.0 boot-floppies, which didn't happen until after freeze. In fact, I took over for Enrique in August, if I recall, precisely because I didn't want to go into freeze again without a semi-functional bf. I think that by version 2.2.9 (28 Mar) we had a pretty functional release quality set, at least for i386. Pretty much all major changes after that were just enhancements, more hardware supported (like RAID), and of course, modutils problems (still going on). For other arches, working through the device support and boot-loader support took longer. However, I don't want to downplay the complexities and rather nightmarish problem of trying to get the release out -- and bf shares all those nightmarish quantities. Coordination on the kernel versions and all the damn i386 flavors (kernel, modules, pcmcia) was a major issue. Anyhow, I don't think it's fair to blame bf for the Potato release delays, really. Not that I'm saying the system shouldn't radically be simplified. -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
