Re: so what? Re: Debian development modem
Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> I don't see any way we could have preserved compatibility more than
> we did, with the hamm release. The entire altdev scheme was devised
> for it. What more could have been done?
That was solved a long time ago, and isn't the reason hamm was
delayed. [Not having the apt method for dselect might be considered
the reason hamm was delayed.]
> "They do it" is easily said, but it runs counter to the principle of
> letting maintainers have the final word on their packages. That
> principle is the main reason why absentee maintainers are such a
> problem. Do you propose to drop it?
Maintainers have the final word only if the exercise it. We
don't need to stall a release because someone decided that
some real life issue was more important to them.
> This is still a major operation at every freeze time. I like the
> "stable pool" approach much better. That way we are ready to release
> *at any time*, modulo newly discovered bugs in the stable packages
> that have to be fixed.
I think I also like the "stable pool" approach better.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: