On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:10:53AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > If I understand the policy process correctly, the N=3 requirement for > > patches includes the submitter; so with two other seconds, I think this is > > ready to go.
> There was an objection from Michael Biebl True. But when pressed on his aesthetic objections to this implementation, he did not offer an alternative that did not suffer from wrong interface semantics. I don't think it's reasonable to hold this up indefinitely waiting for a systemd user to design a solution he's happy with for upstart. > and quite a bit of discussion after those seconds which touched on > important issues There has certainly been a lot of discussion, but most of it touched on things which can/should be dealt with outside of policy. Nobody has suggested any concrete changes to the policy language in response to that discussion. The only post-seconding change was a bugfix to a code example included in the patch. >, and I do not remember if the patch addressed them. Would it be a bad > idea to refresh our memories by reposting the patch? The current patch is the one at <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=591791#294>. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
