[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal



Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal"):
> As things stand, it seems that each set of dependency rider options will
> have some members of the TC voting them below FD.  Which means I don't think
> we've actually gotten to the bottom of this issue and identified the
> consensus position, and I think we should be doing so.

I think that there probably isn't a consensus position.

> Where would this ballot option rank vis-à-vis FD, for those TC members who
> are opposed to the "loose coupling" option?

Well, I'm not one of those so your question is not really aimed at me.
But your S is for me basically a version of T, so I don't like it for
that reason.  (To an extent, the first and second sentences of the 2nd
para are contradictory, and I don't think that's helpful.)

And the requirement you set out about dependencies is IMO too
technologically specific, and ought to be covered by the 3rd
paragraph about reasonable patches.

AFAICT neither Russ or Bdale have directly answered your question.

Given that and what I have said, do you want (a) to discuss this
further (perhaps with another irc drafting meeting) (b) to vote on
{T,L}{D,U,O,R} etc. (c) to propose your S or some variant on it as
well (as S{D,U,O,R} I expect) (d) something else ?

Thanks,
Ian.


Reply to: