Coin, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't you think it might be a good idea to explain the policy better if > it is not understood correctly? (And you might remember that I did such > suggestions for the policy already.) Even the CDBS class was not as easy to use as i wanted, this is obvious the changes are wide and complicated. We should be able to improve this a bit more. > You mean, after we all put time and energy into a discussion, agreed on > some results, and put some more work into the results, you're just going > to tell us that you will ignore all of that? That sounds like a rather > large slap into people's faces. All this was started far too late and the release team is putting pressure on us (what i can fully understand, but some here may be responsible for this delay), leading to precipitation. Even the CDBS class was not tested enough before upload, and i'm now having another problem because my examples had a mistake many would have probably repeated. So i'm trying to find a solution, but this may lead to some FTBFS in the next upload. It's not we are not working enough, but this deadline was too short, clearly (i said it already). > A policy becomes also effective when violations of a policy lead to > packages exclusion from the next stable release. I guess we should see this as a threat. How BOFH-like behaviors of this kind is gonna help find solutions ? Now, Joss, Buxy and me are trying to find a solution off the list, where it seems only flames are coming. Stay tuned... -- Marc Dequènes (Duck)
pgpVA0Giq4SjI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
