On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Frans Pop <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > >> I do agree that the current draft does not look like a release > >> announcement. But the document I had initially written was actually > >> meant to be a part of it, as a simple, human-readable compilations of > >> the various changes in the installer since Etch. > > > > If that was it's purpose, it should not have had it's current header > > and Otavio should not have presented it as "the" release announcement > > on the mailing list. > > That's why it's called draft. This means it's not finished yet ;-) This is a draft of a totally different document than a release announcement, so that really is nonsense. I commented on it as a draft of the release announcement (because that is what you told me it was), while this is a draft of a detailed changes log. > <...> > > > Even then I think the current document is messy in the sense that the > > information is not very logically ordered and does a bad job to reflect > > the impact and importance of various changes. > > I'd like to know if you could help on that. > > I'm not personally good to document that things and specially I'm not > also good to prepare those type of texts. People more used to that > might help on it. You are one that come to my mind, obviously. As I've told you before, I'm not willing to do that.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.