On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 07:47:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > I would point out that historically, Debian does not release before it
> > > is ready, and that's why our releases usually work so well. Option 3
> > > is the "release before it is ready, because releasing is more
> > > important than being ready" option. Option 6 is the "better rather
> > > than sooner" option.
> >
> > Non sequitur - the premise is vaguely correct, but I disagree that the two
> > conclusions follow from it. It doesn't make sense to me that readiness and
> > usability of Debian releases are to be achieved by removing stuff that
> > was not supposed to be removed just a while ago.
>
> Only if you take it as a given that the old release policy was
> correct. Otherwise it's just that heads have been forcibly removed
> from the sand now.
Well, the old release policy can't have been all that wrong given that
nobody actually proposed changing it -- the proposal was clearly aimed
at clarifying the language of the social contract, not at changing its
intent and/or purpose.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
