On Tuesday 02 March 2010 09:15:19 Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Mon,01.Mar.10, 17:46:11, Stephen Powell wrote: > > > There is no plan for timed release cycles, only timed freezes. > > > > Hmm. Well, I suppose that timed freezes is better than timed > > release cycles, but it still breaks the traditional concept of > > "release goals", does it not? Historically, a new release had > > a set of release goals associated with it. With timed release freezes, > > that pretty much throws release goals out the window. > > I think it depends on whether the release goal is considered RC (release > critical) or not. Even if you freeze the software versions, the release > team can still grant exceptions in such cases and even without timed > freezes, if a release goal is not ready it is not ready (dependency > based boot for lenny, just to name an example). > > [...] > > > Since the resources are fixed at $0 (donated free labor) and the time > > interval is fixed at one year, the release goals go out the window. > > You just can't eat your cake and have it too. > > I don't think this is a fair comparison. Yes, it is free donated labor, > but it doesn't mean that it's worth $0!
No - of course not - but it does mean that it *costs* $0. There are those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003021531.38830.lisi.re...@gmail.com
