>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Swift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> release" last week, as some have wished. The last couple of Matthew> days of debian-changes tell me that versions of two new Matthew> packages are available now whose only modification was to Matthew> include new or improved documentation. Another update for a Matthew> network package included significant security improvements. Matthew> I think anyone downloading a release today -- including Matthew> CD-ROM vendors and new users -- would want a Debian with Matthew> those new packages, not last week's hypothetical "release," Matthew> however official. All official means to me is that an effort has been made to document what is there. Functional stability is nice, but is, IMHO, very much secondary. Instead of having the debian coordinators agonize over some arbitrary determination of `stability', why not just stop when you say you are going to and then post to debian-users retrospectively as problems come up. I'm all for the notion of an evolving system, and I think that all users should become immediately aware of this aspect of Free software -- people get too whiney and parasitic, otherwise. With a broad but shallow set of maintainers, it seems especially important to encourage people to take the initiative. It seems to me that delaying serves all the wrong people. The absolute worst thing would be to have a setup where it wasn't clear to the naive user what updates had been made to their R6. Even worse would be slightly different versions on different CDs.
