On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:26:51 AM Rick Spencer wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Allison Randal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm not entirely opposed to the idea that the Debian development model > > > of 2-year "stable" releases with an ongoing "unstable" archive has been > > > right all along. But frankly, if someone came to me with this proposal > > > you've posted as a "startup" and asked me to invest in it, I'd say "You > > > haven't demonstrated that this is technically feasible." and kick them > > > back to the drawing board. > > > > Oh? I would point to our last several years of improving Daily Quality and > > at Raring as it is today. I think our track record for making a highly > > usable development release is quite excellent. > > The current approach to daily quality has never been tried when Debian wasn't > in freeze. Declaring things good now based on the available data is like a > penguin on an iceberg as it floats north being convinced the data so far > proving he's riding on a stable, reliable platform.
And also when Unity and Compiz have only been receiving bug fix work, not major feature development. I think that we have improved daily quality overall, but Raring itself is not enough data to say it is equivalent to the six month releases. Ted
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
