Next focus: PROCESS

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 12/16/2012 08:35 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 02:03:34 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> You don't need to repeat your self, you need to expand on your points. Joseph
>> has already requested that you give specifics of your objection, you have
>> explained why the situation is different but not what needs to be different.
>
> This is completely backward, but I'll do it anyway. But first, let me explain
> why it is backward.
>
> You are using distro's versionning system as a base of reflexion. But such
> system is made to achieve different goal than a programming language. I
> shouldn't be here explaining why this is wrong, you should be here explaining me
> why it can be applied anyway.

And once again, you're failing to address the specifics of my proposal, simply 
saying "A distro and a programming language have different requirements."

Because while some of my proposals were inspired by some of the ways in which 
Ubuntu manages its releases, and share some of the same terminology, _they are 
not the same_.  In fact the only thing that it really shares with Ubuntu is the 
idea that the support and maintenance periods for long-term "stable" versions 
should overlap so that users who require that stable base have adequate time to 
upgrade.

That's useful for _any_ software no matter what the purpose.

So once again I'd ask you to engage with the specifics of my proposal -- because 
from what I've read so far, it seems like the _only_ source of your objections 
is the use of the words "Ubuntu" and "Long-Term Support", and that if I'd 
written the same proposal without those words, you'd have given a different 
response.