Release management thoughts for Dapper Drake

[Martin Pitt]

Hi Jeff!

Jeff Waugh [2005-10-15  3:56 +0100]:
> > I think if we do want to do this "stable upstreams" release, the first
> > things we should ditch are the above set and instead release with a
> > known-good GNOME 2.12, Xorg 6.8, etc.
> 
> Nup, there are good, worthwhile reasons to continue with feature goals such
> as these (remember, we're doing desktop support for 3 years, not 5 years).

I can only agree to Scott here. Jeff, if our feature goal is "provide
the very latest Gnome crack", then your idea of providing known-good
desktop software is not compatible with that goal in principle. 

(FWIW, I don't think that we should generally forbid new upstream
versions.)

> > And I still think it's a bad idea; we've built up our reputation and
> > user-base on the idea of having 6-monthly releases of the latest software
> > -- and to suddenly not do that for a release seems like a mistake to me.
> 
> Much of the software with immediate end-user benefit will be covered by
> feature goals. The core system, and in particular server stuff, would not.

OTOH, how many regressions on the server side did you actually see?
From my POV, the majority of regressions are on the Gnome desktop and
especially in the kernel (some devices which worked flawlessly with
the hoary kernel broke in Breezy), printing, scanner support, etc.

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt        http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer   http://www.ubuntu.com
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20051017/9c564720/attachment.pgp