<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.0"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:00 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 11:26:51 AM Rick Spencer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Allison Randal <<A HREF="mailto:allison@ubuntu.com">allison@ubuntu.com</A>> wrote: > > I'm not entirely opposed to the idea that the Debian development model > > of 2-year "stable" releases with an ongoing "unstable" archive has been > > right all along. But frankly, if someone came to me with this proposal > > you've posted as a "startup" and asked me to invest in it, I'd say "You > > haven't demonstrated that this is technically feasible." and kick them > > back to the drawing board. > > Oh? I would point to our last several years of improving Daily Quality and > at Raring as it is today. I think our track record for making a highly > usable development release is quite excellent. The current approach to daily quality has never been tried when Debian wasn't in freeze. Declaring things good now based on the available data is like a penguin on an iceberg as it floats north being convinced the data so far proving he's riding on a stable, reliable platform. </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> And also when Unity and Compiz have only been receiving bug fix work, not major feature development. I think that we have improved daily quality overall, but Raring itself is not enough data to say it is equivalent to the six month releases. Ted </BODY> </HTML>