| 1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:46:38 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> An issue your suggestion doesn't address is when packages don't even |
| 4 |
> stick around 30 days/etc. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I know I've seen many packages where there is an ancient stable version |
| 7 |
> that is never touched, and a much newer ~arch version that gets tweaked |
| 8 |
> every 3-6 weeks. When it gets tweaked, often the old version is just |
| 9 |
> removed immediately, or shortly after it is bumped. So, packages often |
| 10 |
> don't stick around the 30 days it takes to stabilize them. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Granted, this is a bit anecdotal so I can't speak for how big a problem |
| 13 |
> this is in reality. However, for any stabilization scheme to work |
| 14 |
> packages have to be, well, stable. :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Talking about... Just today I was reading that the firefox folks are |
| 17 |
debating shortening the current 6-week cycle to 5-weeks or less. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Mozilla-developers-consider-even-shorter-release-cycle-1347013.html |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 23 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 24 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives