Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> (2016-12-20): > This is for sure. Cyril just states that he rather would love to remove > the blends completely, and this is something I am arguing against. No, I said this was the default action, until I have looked at proposed changes, and assessed what to do with them. Current state in the archive is a no-go. It's been the case for too many releases already, and it's been reported as such from the very beginning. Proposed implementation hasn't reached the master branch, let alone the archive; and current commit messages contain interrogations AFAICT from a quick look at the IRC notifications earlier today. That's not something I want to see rushed into stretch just because nobody worked on the no-go situation for months, despite early warnings. > That Phils solution is a great compromise, is out of question. IMO it > would help much if d-i would help here a bit instead of just trying to > play a veto game. It's not about veto-ing. It's about not believing it's OK to push/rush invasive changes whenever one feels like it. The freeze is here for a reason. Back a few years, we've had to change d-i a lot during the freeze because almost nobody worked on it for quite a while. (We even went as far as not starting the freeze until an Alpha was actually released, if memory serves.) We've been having (in)frequent d-i releases for two release cycles now, and there have been plenty of chances to determine and implement a “great compromise”. Several weeks or months after the gradual freeze has started is way too late by my count. Hence my current heuristics. KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature