Re: Release sarge now, or discuss etch issues?
Joey Hess <email@example.com> schrieb:
> Frank Küster wrote:
>> I do not understand why the Nybbles team mixed their good news about
>> sarge with their foreseeably controversial plans or proposal for etch.
>> I fear that we will have a huge, long flamewar. And many competent,
>> active people will start coding implementations of alternatives to the
>> Nybbles plan, alternatives that will allow us to make releases also of
>> the SCC/tier-2 arches.
>> I think all this discussion about etch should be delayed until sarge is
>> out. Of course we would need a statement from the Nybbles team that
>> they do not intend to make decicions, and not to settle facts before a
>> thorough discussion has taken place - after the release.
Meanwhile, there have been statements on -vote, e.g. by aj in
| That said, I don't think any of the implementation has been started
| yet, and it certainly won't be completed 'til sarge is released; so
| there's plenty of time for further comments or tweaks or even
that make me confident that there will be time for discussion, an open
> The fact that the release team now sees the light at the end of the
> tunnel for the release of sarge means that now is the time we need to
> begin planning for etch. Allowing unstable development to pick back up
> after a release with no clear plan for the next release has been shown
> time and time again to delay the next release by one to two *years*.
> The rest follows from that.
It follows from that that we should start the discussion, yes. But it
doesn't follow that we had to start the discussion by sending a mail to
-devel-announce that proposed a drastic change without consulting all
parties involved, *and* that did not sound like a proposal, but a
The waste of resources follows from that, I fear.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich