On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 09:11 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:19:59 +1000, Robert Collins > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > * rename the 'bazaar' package to 'baz' - both source and binary, > > though binary is the key one. This is because it is no longer the > > recommended tool from the 'Bazaar VCS Project' rather it is > > deprecated. Its useful for conversions to bzr though, so keeping > > it as 'baz' is good. > > That is not the only use for it. bzr is an inplementation of > Arch, and there are people who have not bought the 'Bazaar VCS Project' > koolaid, and still prefer Arch to the new VCS.
Thats fine, they are welcome to keep using Arch. 'baz' itself is unmaintained, though many of the patches in it relative to 'tla' have been incorporated upstream. > > * Create a 'bazaar' package which is a metapackage depending on bzr, > > recommending key plugins, and suggesting others. > > This would be a bug. While I understand you prefer the bzr VCS > over Arch, I see no justification for imposing your likes and dislikes > over users happily using baz as their version control system. I would > be most annoyed if baz would have been replaced by bzr on my systems if > the sysadmin dude did not notice the change. Curiosity: I take it then that you are still using baz, rather than tla? > A note in NEWS.Debian about your preferred VCS would be OK, I > suppose, but please come up with a bewtter upgrade plan for current > users of baz. A starting point is to do the package rename with upgrades and not introduce a bazaar metapackage for a release. Or at least for some arbitrary timeframe, as that can be more precisely defined. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
