On 11445 March 1977, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:56:11AM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: >> On 12/07/2008 Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> > Those two links clearly say "Its better to not have force involved" and >> > let the maintainers agree on it. Why do you ignore that and try to force >> > it now, not giving the maintainers any time to act on this? >> Joey Schulze never contributed to the discussion at any time > Judging from the degree how good sysklogd is "maintained", if > sysklogd's Owner (I don't dare to say "maintainer" here for a reason) > needs to consent, we'll have sysklogd as default syslogd until hell > freezes over.
The discussion just raised again on -release. Joey got CCed in one or two mails now. Pushing with the bug on the same day is too fast. Instead I like the proposal to wait until Tuesday and then take action. And no, I don't need Joeys OK to do such changes, I just dislike the speed that was used here. Depending on what I see (or not) on the lists/in this bug, I do the change on Tuesday. (I am in favor of it, even if i would have much preferred syslog-ng, but basically anything is better than sysklogd nowadays). -- bye, Joerg <maxx> Aqua mach mal man brain.... <Aquariophile> maxx: schon probiert das gibts ned -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
