On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Martin-Éric Racine [Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:01:50 +0300]: > >> On 8/16/08, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Dude, the guidelines say "changes for release goals, if they're not >> > invasive", not "not invasive changes, for $whatever they are". > >> I still haven't heard in what way this change constitutes something >> invasive. It's a simple two-liner and its consequences are safe. > > Oh god. I haven't said the changes are invasive:
I'm NOT the one one who wrote the above «Dude, the guidelines say "changes for release goals, if they're not invasive", not "not invasive changes, for $whatever they are".», you did. >> > I'm pretty much done with this discussion; 2.10.1 continues to be ok for >> > lenny if you drop that change. Well, whatever. I could create a 2.10.1-1lenny1, just for the sake of reverting those changes and even though reverting them is pointless, then push that somewhere else. lenny-update-proposed? -- Martin-Éric Racine http://q-funk.iki.fi
