Hi Thomas, Le vendredi, 5 avril 2013 17.52:19, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > > And all of these features will only land for the next cycle > > with a release in ~= 2 years time. > > I really hope that it wont be the case. That it doesn't go into > Debian 7.0.0, I would understand, but at least, we need it > for a point release.
Are you seriously arguing in favour of pushing a behavioural change into a stable point release? I doubt the stable release team would accept that, but I'm not under their hats. > And at least, we need things written in the release notes about it, if not a > message in the installer itself (Christian, don't kill me... ;). I disagree. It has worked that way for a long time (and many releases in that timeframe), so it is probably not "that" broken. I'm not saying the bug isn't valid of course, just that it's severity is IMHO correct. > Could we stop the winning and have this bug fixed please, > or the patch rejected (with a valid motivation)? Could we stop the useless bikeshedding and have Wheezy released please? The patch doesn't need rejection: it is a valid patch for a valid bug. It just affects d-i, which is quite an important piece of software for sane Debian releases. As you know, d-i is critically low on manpower. You want that bug fixed? Great: test the patch, document your tests, upload to experimental with the patch, gather feedback, get involved, etc. For a fix to land in Wheezy, this should have happened 8 months ago. Now is the time to release Wheezy, not the time to add cosmetic and disruptive fixes to it. (And again, I think the changes are probably worthwhile, it's only the timing which is wrong.) OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201304051816.11079.o...@debian.org
