Re: release schedule for 1.9? (Was: Re: automake -vs- huge projects (1st patch))

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 04:54:33PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> adl> Also, since we have switched to API-numbering, bumping that
> adl> version number has a cost.  For instance Debian distributes
> adl> automake1.4, automake1.6, automake1.7, and automake1.8.  If we
> adl> add another API, it'd better be worth it.
> 
> Yeah.  It turns out that Red Hat still ships 1.5 because some packages
> still depend on it.  Sigh.  Obviously this doesn't scale -- at some
> point it has to be so painless to upgrade that someone like Debian or
> Red Hat can simply ditch 1.x and convert everything to 1.x+1 all at
> once.

Frankly, the reason Debian is carrying so many versions is because
maintainers are bloody lazy. Every transition of this form takes ages,
no matter how easy it is to convert. Half the time there's nothing
that needs to be done aside from actually using a newer version, and
it still doesn't get done.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature