On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:45:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If not, I object to any change in the priority system until we achieve > > a consistent system with the current priorities. > Heh. I don't think we can get a consistent system until we make our > priorities make sense. :) Hmm, while I'm sympathetic to the proposal, I have to say that I think Santiago may have a point here. Adding another priority to squabble over may not make things anyone's job any easier, and could end up merely provoking whole new groups of flamewars. I think the proposal is worth considering, but I think that at the *very* least, we should deal with the task-* package namespace mess first, and get *that* straightened out before adopting a policy that task-* packages define priorities. So, can I suggest that we table this for the moment, and come back to it when the time is right? I think it's a fine idea long term, but at the moment, I think it would be a nightmare. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
