Re: Experiment: poll on "switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?"
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Experiment: poll on "switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?"
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:21:39 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87mzib7nho.fsf@becket.becket.net>
- In-reply-to: <20051222052423.GB18358@kitenet.net> (Joey Hess's message of "Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:24:23 -0500")
- References: <20051218183857.GA16162@kitenet.net> <20051220000634.GD32095@kitenet.net> <20051220143650.GA5087@moregruel.net> <20051221143126.GC7669@mail.strace.org> <20051221144551.GA13238@A-Eskwadraat.nl> <20051221201415.GB13238@A-Eskwadraat.nl> <20051221204944.GE18029@zewt.org> <E1EpCB0-0005Js-00@pipe.localnet.towers.org.uk> <20051222003543.GI18029@zewt.org> <E1EpGBq-0005eV-00@pipe.localnet.towers.org.uk> <20051222052423.GB18358@kitenet.net>
Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
> Oh, come on. vim-tiny entered the archive this week. The fact that we
> have some slow buildds and ports like hurd-i386 that are perennially
> behind is irrelevant to this discussion unless you can point to a build
> failure log.
Maybe we shouldn't switch the standard vi to a package which has only
been in the archive for one week?
Reply to: