Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: ciol <ciol13@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Monday, November 12, 2007 - 7:09 am

ciol <ciol13@gmail.com> writes:



I think a megafreeze development model is sane.  Finding a collection
of software versions that are all known to work together is very
interesting, and useful.  Making it so you can deliver something that
just works to end users is always interesting.

The only thing you miss out on are new features like the latest hardware
support.

I think forking packages just so you can claim they are frozen is a
dubious practice.  Especially if features are added in those forks.
(Yes new hardware support is a feature).

Eric
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?, Eric W. Biederman, (Mon Nov 12, 7:09 am)
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?, Chris Snook, (Thu Nov 8, 10:26 am)
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?, David Newall, (Thu Nov 8, 9:38 am)
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?, Stephen Hemminger, (Thu Nov 8, 2:18 am)
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?, Rik van Riel, (Wed Nov 7, 7:06 pm)