Re: Sarge release (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:44:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yes, but the utherly arrogant and despreciating way in how this announcement
>
> Chill out. It was a RFC, and it was labelled as such. It may not be perfect,
> and obviously it will see some (many?) changes yet. But it was NOT arrogant
> or depreciating.
>
> Some of it could have used a lot more thought (the need for a tier-1.5 where
> there is full support but a reduced mirror set is *obvious* in hindsight
> IMHO), but that's the idea behind requesting comments.
Where are the minutes of the discussion, where are detailed explanation of the
problems trying to be sovled ? Where is a call to alternative solution ? Where
is a call for help from the arch porters for security and infrastructure
issues ? Given that things are like they are in big part because such help was
rejected in the paste, how do you not see this as a decision which doesn't
care for the non-tier1 ports ?
> > No data on what exactly the problems where, no data on the correlation of
> > those problems on the proposed drastic solutions, no minutes of the meeting,
> > no previous announcement to involve the porters, nothing.
>
> Since it is a RFC, that is not needed, as we ARE obviously going over all
> that anyway, and trying to do it beforehand *is* an utterly useless effort
> the way Debian mailinglist threads usually work.
Doing it this way is an utter lack of respect for the debian maintainers not
in the inner circle.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: