On Sun, Dec 13, 1998 at 08:16:15PM -0500, Elie Rosenblum wrote: > And thus spake David Welton, on Sun, Dec 13, 1998 at 03:44:32PM -0600: > > > > So you just see unstable as the highest priority, always? I don't > > think that would bode real well for our ability to put out stable > > releases. Or am I interpreting this wrong? > > I was afraid I would be misinterpreted like that. :) What I mean is, > I don't think people are actually prioritizing unstable above all else. > > If he finds himself unable to keep frozen correct while doing unstable > development, maybe his priorities are off; I am trying to avoid a few > people hindering unstable development merely because a minority seem > unable to cope with both. Hear, hear. I *don't* put unstable before frozen, but I take flak for that position because people want XFree86 3.3.3, *NOW*, damnit, and they don't seem to care too much about me wrestling 126.96.36.199a to the ground for slink. Though in truth, it has been almost a month since the last release of X, and I really need to get another one out soon. My only defense is that I think I have been psychologically exhausted by 7 releases of X in short order, and probably more like 20 compile cycles of it. -- G. Branden Robinson | It was a typical net.exercise -- a Debian GNU/Linux | screaming mob pounding on a greasy spot email@example.com | on the pavement, where used to lie the cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | carcass of a dead horse.
Description: PGP signature