On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:45 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > The much larger consequence of this meeting, however, has been the > crafting of a prospective release plan for etch.
Thank you to those individuals who worked on this plan; I think its a good step in reducing our release turnaround time. > - the release architecture must be publicly available to buy new I'd like to see if we can clarify this text. I can see some of the problems this requirement would solve, such as guaranteed availability of replacement parts for Debian machines, etc. However, I wouldn't want to see us drop an arch with a large user community because a company decides to discontinue a product. For example, although HP announced they are going to discontinue alpha, there maybe a large number of alpha users/developers who want to see stable releases continue, even after debian could no longer purchase a new one[1]. If its really some side-effect of the discontinuation that's an issue, let's list that side-effect instead; e.g., if the real issue is that we need to have a reliable source for spare parts or replacement machines, lets say that - there are other ways to assure part availability. If this requirement is a guideline to help us get down to a target number of architectures, lets explicitly say that, versus listing it as a firm requirement. [1] I have no idea how many alpha users we have, nor how many want to have a stable release - this is just an example. -- dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Note: I'm employed by HP, but I'm not speaking on behalf of HP) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
