cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
er, saying "we've committed to this" really comes across as a 'fait a compli' to a lot of people.That's why it's posted on the lists now -- it never too late to get input into something in Debian; even after we've committed to something, we can almost always change our minds.
Any "proposal" made by all the people who'll have to implement it is going to come across as a fait accompli, no matter how you phrase it. And, to some extent, that's exactly the right reaction.
But, I mean, take the above -- I didn't say we'd committed to this; I said that if we had, it could *still* be changed -- yet your instinct was to take the opposite implication out of it.
again I'm missing why's here, it may be obvious to members of the release team, but it's not obvious to me (nor it would seem a lot of other people on the list), and an "I think" does not tell me anything.
There're a range of reasons, most of which probably won't be obvious to everyone 'til after the fact. Having more flexibility to bend the release requirements, and being able to choose to focus porting efforts on a stable target instead of a moving one are useful features for some ports, though, I think.
if you want a technical discussion instead of a political one it helps to
...not have it on a Debian mailing list. :-/ Cheers, aj