On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:48:43 +0000 Bart Martens <ba...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit : > > > What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43? > > > > Who said 42 is acceptable? > > The neglected ones should be removed. If they're all well maintained and all > used, then 43 is acceptable, in my opinion. There is general agreement that neglected ones should be removed, it just comes down to someone doing the work and making that assessment. If you're interested, file the RM bugs in time for wheezy. Feel free to re-use a similar measure/approximation for "neglect" as I blogged about for the measure/approximation of "rubbish". (Linked from my homepage below.) With any objective analysis of the current 42, I find it impossible to believe that all 42 would re-qualify. Of course, someone who wanted to introduce #43 may be the person in the right place to do the analysis. It isn't a small task - if it doesn't get done for wheezy it's not that bad but it does seem justified before #43 arrives. I'd expect that the process itself shows that #43 isn't actually needed at all and that whatever is desired can be achieved by patching one of the existing ones. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpQr67DQQziL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
