On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:18:34AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
For this not to happen, we might need to have an already established
release team for etch. Maybe the people currently involved in the
release team as RM and assistant RM just want to continue the hard
work. Maybe some of you
to have an already established
release team for etch. Maybe the people currently involved in the
release team as RM and assistant RM just want to continue the hard
work. Maybe some of you people just want to get a break
Anyway, I think that we would all benefit in knowing as soon as
possible
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
El sáb, 11-06-2005 a las 08:15 +0200, Giuseppe Sacco escribió:
Why do you want a new release without other new important packages like,
just to make an example, X.org?
There are a lot of new large packages that
Giuseppe Sacco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are a lot of new large packages that needs a *lot* of testing
before being releaseable. I think a one year release is really
impossibile, while a two years release seems reasonable to me.
We can just release those packages in etch+1 if they can't
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A key point is certainly building up a release schedule ASAP so that
all individual maintainers can establish their own schedules for their
packages. For instance, it will certainly have a great influence on
the d-i team projects for the installer.
Il giorno lun, 13-06-2005 alle 13:43 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG ha
scritto:
Giuseppe Sacco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are a lot of new large packages that needs a *lot* of testing
before being releaseable. I think a one year release is really
impossibile, while a two years release
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050613 22:46]:
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A key point is certainly building up a release schedule ASAP so that
all individual maintainers can establish their own schedules for their
packages. For instance, it will certainly have a
Giuseppe Sacco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Il giorno lun, 13-06-2005 alle 13:43 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG ha
scritto:
Giuseppe Sacco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are a lot of new large packages that needs a *lot* of testing
before being releaseable. I think a one year release is really
Il giorno ven, 10-06-2005 alle 18:58 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG ha
scritto:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:14:02PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.10.2300 +0200]:
Currently, I am planning to stick
Because I value what little of my sanity remains, and am guarding it
jealously. A 12-month release cycle for etch would mean that someone else
would need to take point on it; the rate at which the release team's
involvement would have to ramp up again for a 12-month cycle wouldn't leave
me
On 2005-06-11 Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
By the end of September, have the GCC changes in place and other
infrastructural changes that we know we expect. Have filed bug
reports on whatever new RC issues will need to be fixed for etch.
(Such as the GCC change, and
El sb, 11-06-2005 a las 08:15 +0200, Giuseppe Sacco escribi:
Il giorno ven, 10-06-2005 alle 18:58 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG ha
scritto:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
By the end of June, decide the release criteria.
By the end of September, have the GCC changes in place
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a lot of new large packages that needs a *lot* of testing
before being releaseable. I think a one year release is really
impossibile, while a two years release seems reasonable to me.
So Ubuntu does not actually exist?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
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
* Sebastian Ley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050611 12:17]:
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
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
Why do you want a release with X.org packages and not with . (fill
in here). The problem is that Debian is quite huge and have packages
with very different schedules and in different cycles of their live. If
we
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 03:29:41AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Christian Perrier wrote:
For this not to happen, we might need to have an already established
release team for etch. Maybe the people currently involved in the
release team as RM and assistant RM just want to continue the hard
probably all agree that releasing etch in 3 years is not the
best thing to do.
For this not to happen, we might need to have an already established
release team for etch. Maybe the people currently involved in the
release team as RM and assistant RM just want to continue the hard
work. Maybe some
also sprach Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.10.2300 +0200]:
Currently, I am planning to stick around for etch. If we're still waiting
for etch two years from now, it's hard to predict how I'll feel at that
point. :)
QUICK, ALL: this should be enough of a reason to get etch out in
a
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:14:02PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.10.2300 +0200]:
Currently, I am planning to stick around for etch. If we're still waiting
for etch two years from now, it's hard to predict how I'll feel at that
point. :)
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:14:02PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.10.2300 +0200]:
Currently, I am planning to stick around for etch. If we're still waiting
for etch two years from now, it's hard
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:58:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Why not? The following seems like a reasonable plan to me:
By the end of June, decide the release criteria.
By the end of September, have the GCC changes in place and other
infrastructural changes that we know we
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:58:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:14:02PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.06.10.2300 +0200]:
Currently, I am planning to stick around for
Steve Langasek wrote:
Currently, I am planning to stick around for etch. If we're still waiting
for etch two years from now, it's hard to predict how I'll feel at that
point. :)
Ugh! However, that'd be still one year faster than sarge...
Regards,
Joey
--
Reading is a lost art
.
For this not to happen, we might need to have an already established
release team for etch. Maybe the people currently involved in the
release team as RM and assistant RM just want to continue the hard
work. Maybe some of you people just want to get a break
Anyway, I think that we would all
25 matches
Mail list logo
