On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:16:48PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:07:02PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote: > > Since, as others have pointed out, woody from the clarified SC point of > > view is no better than sarge, delaying sarge itself to make it "perfect" > > woudn't make any justice to our users. > > > > It's quite better if we actually release sarge (which breaches the > > social contract no more than woody does) and then fix the issues and > > release sarge+1 as soon as possible SC-compliant. > > I initially felt this way and tried making this argument to Anthony on > IRC, but he wasn't having any of it: as I understand it (not wishing to > put words into his mouth), he feels that making a new release knowing > that it violates the social contract is qualitatively different from > putting up with the old release that met the promises in the old > contract but not the new one.
> After some discussion, I have to say I was convinced. So does this have any bearings on your proposed GR, or did that conversation happen some time ago? > Ultimately, it's the release manager who gets most say in this one. Which is why I hope AJ will speak up on this soon. AJ, could you perhaps comment on the proposed GRs or just state what your preferred way of action would be in order to not delay the sarge release? thanks, Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
