LFS in a rut?

TheOldFellow theoldfellow at gmail.com
Tue Jun 14 00:36:28 PDT 2005


Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> TheOldFellow wrote:
> 
>> I think the problem is that we have not RELEASED anything. 


> It's not going
> to be perfect (probably ever...) and a release now might help keep
> interest alive.

I don't think perfection is ever required (in fact as an attribute of
God, it's blasphemy to suggest it :-)

Just make a pragmatic decision: 'this is a step forward from the last
release, and probably doesn't contain any more really bad things than
the last release'.  This is what we do when we release commercial
software to a client: 'this will do a better job than the last release,
and although we believe that we've tested the hell out of it, we are on
hand to catch any fallout'.  (as opposed to Microsoft who say: 'Bill
promised we'd write this a couple of years ago, so we finally got around
to it last week, and here's our first shot - now if you pay us a lot,
we'll let you test it while we write another one :-)

> Also, I realize you've pretty much had work on 6.1 all to yourself (the
> rest of us have been busy in other things, cross-lfs, other projects,
> etc.) so sorry for that, but if you decide to go ahead and release
> within the week, I'll drop whatever else I'm doing and help get changes
> done to make a release happen.

Do I detect that there are fewer active editors than in the past?
Certainly the editors are different people.  You are a little more
diluted because there are two lines of development (6.1 and Cross), but
presumably that will end after 6.1 is released and Cross become
'candidate next release' (my presumption).

But if the load is too high, why not have a recruitment drive?  There
are some new LFS friends out there who have a lot of enthusiasm, and
show signs of settling down to making useful contributions.

Jeremy, You were prompted to start this thread by looking at the
obsolete bits of the website - the website needs a refresh soon I think
too.  Or at least a pruning to get rid of stuff that's clearly no longer
relevant.  The bit you quote was written a long time ago when there were
lots of editors all fighting to make the book go in their particular
direction.  The world has moved and even the author of that page has
moved on too (unless you are still lurking Bill).

R.





More information about the lfs-dev mailing list