On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> When I do my release work, I have certain tools, and decisions about how
>> to use them. One of these tools is britney, and another is the possibility
>> of saying that certain bugs will not stop the release from happening.
> <snip>
>> Unstable is also "Debian", you know.)
>
> I found these arguments actually really convincing. So, to the GR
> proposers, beware of how do you propose it, because I would have
> really hard time understanding a GR that simply asks for not
> *releasing* stuff which we continue *distributing* in some of our
> suites (i.e., unstable). Why should the treatment be different?
It should not. Which is why the patches proposed on -kernel
should be applied (NMU's are certainly feasible)
> ... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
> be considered responsible for it? They "just" decide (and kudos for
> all their hard work, BTW) if something which is already in Debian gets
> released or not.
I am not sure that violating a foundation document falls under
the powers of a delegate. I wish it did, being a delegate, but it does
not. I looked.
manoj
--
Amnesia used to be my favorite word, but then I forgot it.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
