Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see any way we could have preserved compatibility more than > we did, with the hamm release. The entire altdev scheme was devised > for it. What more could have been done?
That was solved a long time ago, and isn't the reason hamm was delayed. [Not having the apt method for dselect might be considered the reason hamm was delayed.] > "They do it" is easily said, but it runs counter to the principle of > letting maintainers have the final word on their packages. That > principle is the main reason why absentee maintainers are such a > problem. Do you propose to drop it? Maintainers have the final word only if the exercise it. We don't need to stall a release because someone decided that some real life issue was more important to them. > This is still a major operation at every freeze time. I like the > "stable pool" approach much better. That way we are ready to release > *at any time*, modulo newly discovered bugs in the stable packages > that have to be fixed. I think I also like the "stable pool" approach better. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
