| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 10:20, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> Why not merge the cycles? Once per year (or whatever is decided) the media |
| 3 |
> release (like current releases) coincides with the release of the |
| 4 |
> stable/release tree. The other media releases will be similar, but the tree |
| 5 |
> will not be maintained or provided as release. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
There's no problem with that at all... or changing the release cycle for |
| 8 |
release media to only 2 per year, while releasing the stable tree |
| 9 |
simultaneously... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The whole point is that we should be working together on it, not working |
| 12 |
apart from each other. We already *have* a Release Engineering Top |
| 13 |
Level Project, there's no need to duplicate their efforts. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> ps. The difference for the installation medium between a release current style |
| 16 |
> and a stable release could just be the profile provided. (The profile taking |
| 17 |
> care of the different tree etc.) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
With the SYNC variable idea, there's no need for separate media at all. |
| 20 |
All release media is "stable" media, with a simple instruction in the |
| 21 |
Handbook for how to change to the "current" tree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> pps. Of course it could also be done in the manual |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
*grin* |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 29 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives