Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective]
Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com> writes:
> Yes, we'd need more autobuilders (or reconfiguring the one we have),
> we did it for the security team, we can do it for "candidate".
*giggle* 'we'? Is that the royal we or were you working on the
security/buildd infrastructure while I didn't notice? If it's not the
latter, you might want to be a little less free with your assertions
about what is and isn't going to happen with the autobuilders...
> I don't see that it would be more problematic than unstable or
> testing wrt security updates.
*giggle* (again); let's see, the security team seem to have
jack-the-groove interest in supporting testing, never mind
unstable... so what makes you think they're going to jump to support
yet another distribution?