Re: Squeeze backport suite names (was Re: New Backports Suite created)
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:12:23 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> [2010-10-05 17:57:48 CEST]:
> > OK, I really don't want prolong this discussion since there is
> > obviously way too much inertia. I accept the current system as is for
> > lenny. However, would it be possible to consider/debate this for
> > squeeze-backports-* since those suites have yet to be set up?
>
> Like I responded before, no it won't get renamed because you see it
> imperfect. lenny doesn't speak for itself, nor does squeeze.
>
> If you kindly could start to accept that you have your own point of
> view that is different from the people running the service and stop the
> bikeshedding, that would be fine.
I, of course, understand that. However, I must say that the bikeshed
argument is rather simplistic, and its much too easy to invoke that to
end this conversation prematurely. Yes, I agree that it does not matter
whether the bikeshed is blue or orange, or whether the sleep timer
supports integers. However, I think clarity here does matter since
these suites are user-facing, and users are one of Debian's most
important priorities. It is very important that users understand what
things are rapidly, and if we can make that improvements to that, then
I think we should try.
However, I understand that its your suite; you are in control, and you
are completely free to ignore my attempts at reasoned debate (as you
are doing rather effectively right now). All I'm asking for is a bit
more thought as the suite names for squeeze are finalized. You don't
need to use my suggestions, just think about better names, please.
Thanks so much for your consideration.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: