Next focus: PROCESS

[deadalnix]

On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 02:03:34 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 December 2012 at 20:39:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Can we drop the LTS name ? It reminds me of ubuntu, and I 
>> clearly hope that people promoting that idea don't plan to 
>> reproduce ubuntu's scheme :
>> - it is not suitable for a programming language (as stated 3 
>> time now, so just read before why I won't repeat it).
>
> 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.

Otherwise, anyone can come with any point, whatever how stupid it 
is, and each time we have to prove that person wrong. When you 
come with something, you have to explain why it make sens, not 
the other way around.

Back to the point, and it will be the last time. A distro is a 
set of programs. The goal of the distro is to provide a set of 
programs, as up to date as possible, that integrate nicely with 
each other, and with as few bugs as possible. Some of these goals 
are in conflict, so we see different pattern emerge, with 
different tradeoff, as ubuntu and debians's processes.

 From one version to another, distro don't need backward 
compatibility. Easy migration is important, but not 
compatibility. This is why debian can switch to multiarch in its 
next version (which break a hell lot of things). You don't need 
revision of the distro because software are updated on a per 
software basis when problems are detected (package in fact, but 
it don't really matter).

This is very different from a programming language where :
- no package update is possible. The concept of package don't 
even exist in our world.
- backward compatibility is a very important point, when it isn't 
for distros.

The only goal that is coming is trying to reach some level of 
stability. Everything else is completely different.

> Your points were specific to Debian's model, which is not 
> Ubuntu's.
>
>> - ubuntu is notoriously unstable.
>
> I don't know anyone who uses the LTS releases. That isn't to 
> say no one is, but Ubuntu is doing a lot of experimenting in 
> their 6 month releases.

I used to work with ubuntu. I've done a ton of things with that 
distro. It IS unstable. In fact, it is based on debian unstable, 
so it isn't really a surprise.