Hi,
Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I agree with you, it is the best outcome. But when people with power
> (-backports ftp masters) are not willing to consider it, we have to
> go with plan B, which is less than ideal, but can move things
> forward.
Just to avoid this being thought of as an idiosyncrasy of backports
ftpmasters, I suppose I should put my own views forward.
1. Nik, I think you're onto something with this fastpaced proposal.
I would be happy to see some suite to make it easier for users
to consume packages that lack long-term support, like non-ESR
firefox.
2. I am happy with the current charter of backports and I think it's
possible to move forward with fastpaced without having to change
that charter.
3. formerer is speaking from experience when he says that it's
possible to make this kind of change unofficially first, learn
from it, and thus set the groundwork for making it official.
If you foresee obstacles to that, can you say more about where
they lie? Maybe we can help address them, or maybe we can find
another way forward.
If you don't see obstacles, why not start today?
4. Just to reiterate about (2), just like I think it's completely
reasonable for release team to exercise discretion about what
goes in stable and testing, it's completely reasonable for
backports team to exercise discretion about what goes into
backports. Please don't take it personally. It's an important
part of what they do to make the suite sustainable, and I am
very grateful for it.
Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan
