On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:47:17AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 21 mars 2007 à 15:51 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > If we don't, I don't see the purpose of the policy alltogether.
> > Allowing transitions between default versions of python without package > > renames, bypassing NEW, allowing binNMUable transitions, and generally > > simplifying the python upgrade path for users across releases. > How does the broken "current" semantics help with any of these goals? The question I asked was, what is this policy going to do to support the use case that 'current' was designed to address? Your answer appears to be 'nothing'. That's not acceptable. Deprecating the 'current' keyword without offering an alternative that's at least as usable for the intended purpose as 'current' is, is a step in the wrong direction. > > Evidently everyone has lost sight of this as a result of Josselin's process > > hijacking. Oh well. > I'm interested to know which process I have hijacked. I have not > contributed to python policy changes since the "new policy" madness has > started, and I haven't forced anyone to implement things. I've just > implemented a tool that does things *correctly* and helps other > maintainers in this maelstrom of incorrect documentation and blurry > packaging processes. You implemented a tool that *ignored* some of the use cases that went into the initial policy, among them the case for 'current'. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
