Hi, On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:47:19PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Personally, I think m68k would be better served by having a testing-m68k > > > and taking occassional snapshots which serve as the supported stable-m68k > > > release, rather than worrying about something equivalent to etch itself. > > Why should we do this? As it looks right now, we are in not much different > > shape than most other ports [...] > > Roman, please stop beating that horse. You didn't answer my question. Why do you think we shouldn't bother with etch? Most people here expressed their wish for a stable release. Only because some people chose to ignore it, I don't think the topic is irrelevant. > > The only problem right now is our backlog and we'll hopefully > > see soon how quickly it can be reduced via distcc. > > FWIW, that would be a lot more convincing if it had happened a year ago > when it was last suggested... > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg00009.html It also had some other interesting comments about the release criteria, which sounded a lot more reasonable (e.g. no 3 month period). Also it expressed concerns about the veto power, a case we have right now, where the release team just blindly insist on some abstract release criteria, rather than looking at the actual situation and refuses to further justify the decision, e.g. how would the m68k port specifically be a burden on Debian. Why can't we look critically at this decision? Is there really no need for it? bye, Roman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
