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

Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd



On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 12:24:35PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > *shrug* I'm unlikely to consider a quick hack done at the very last
> > minute a reliable firewalling tool.
> You don't know what I mean, so you could at least try to find out what I
> mean first or spare your judgement until it is done.

If you do it when we're trying to finalise everything ready for release
I'm not going to be able to make a rational judgement, and I'm going to
immediately assume the lack of interest, care and time in its development
has resulted in a shoddy product that's not going to work reliably.

If you do a quick hack and it has a few months of use and it's found to
work adequately well, that's fine.

] But if that's what is required to get an otherwise completely functional
] system to be rubber stamped by the release manager, I might just as
] well waste a day or two on it, so that the other effort is saved. I am
] prepared to talk about this again (if there is still a need) a couple
] of weeks before the next freeze.

That isn't the sort of attitude that results in quality software, and
it's at its least acceptable when we're talking about security tools.

> Do you mean that excludes the right to disagree?

You're welcome to disagree all you like.

You're welcome to say "Hurd's ready to release now" even when it's not,
and you don't have to back it up. You're welcome to say "Debian's not
ready to release yet" the day after it releases, and you don't even have
to back that up. I don't get to do any of those things.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' 
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Attachment: pgppkVemEeAao.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: