> > Three choices. > > > > It is obvious where the developers play. But it hard to see how some > > fictional model chosen by very small Linux distributions would benefit > > us. > > Not sure about amount of time sacrificed each time to prepare new complete > release... but perhaps it could be spared, if the system+packages is > "refreshed" piece-by-piece / month-by-month?
The fact that you ask this indicates a strong misunderstanding as to how package software has to be handled today. You oversimplify the effort involved massively. Basically you are asking that we do 12 releases a year, for 13 cpu architectures and 16 machine architectures. Right now, including the slowest architectures, it takes us a FULL MONTH to build the packages for a release. Some of the slower architectures are even building on multiple machines in parallel, to speed things up. A few developers watch these machines and cope with breakage, which hopefully does not come, hoping that in the four months leading up to a release they have been careful enough so that at release time the source tree is clean and works on those machines. An alternative response... is that you are asking that we do 12 release a year for one or two "favored" architectures, and in the process break all the others. Like NetBSD and FreeBSD have, and quite a few Linux sub-projects, who choose to grade architectures based on worthiness. Yes, that is exactly what you are asking. There are no other ways to handle this amount of work. If you were a worker in the project, you would know this. But if you _respected the workers_, you would know this too. As an alternative, our project makes the source tree available minute by minute, as we work on it, so that people can be aware of the scope of the work. yet you still think you can come to our lists and ask such ridiculous questions? > Above are my rather theoretical thoughts... not sure, just asking. Just a theoretical thought, eh. Just asking... right. Yes, it is easy and OK to ask uneducated questions, but it still makes the person asking it look 'uneducated'. Why don't you trust our processes? Might we not have reasons for our particular processes? For our schedules, which we have met 23 times in a row, 6 months apart? Is there a reason why it should not be trusted that we have these processes for a reason? Is what we do now not already good enough, considering the limited resources we have? I hear this chant of "gimme more more more more", when the result of those questions is just that we will be able to do less. What kind of society do you come from, when with your mean and targeted questions you aim to diminish the willingness of giving people to give? Let me be frank. Your questions are rude and thankless. It is like having not even met you, ever, I ask if you ever bathe or brush your teeth. No good answer? I'll let the people who read it assume.... See how this works? This is not a language barrier - it is a politeness barrier. I believe you aim to an impolite person. Good questions and discussion come after one learns what the existing status is. You did not even try.
