reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

[Barry Warsaw]

On Mar 06, 2013, at 02:31 PM, Robert Collins wrote:

>A rolling release that isn't actually *always releasable* isn't a
>rolling release.

In a different forum, some folks were advocating for never actually doing what
we'd traditionally call "a release" ever (of an upstream package).  There'd be
no such thing as an artificially version numbered tarball-like thing.  You'd
just point to whatever git branch and revision and/or tag you cared about, and
that would be it.

Try to imagine a world (or a distro) where everything just rolls along and is
always "releasable" because it always passes whatever automated tests and
gatekeepers are in place.  Crazy, huh?

-Barry