Re: [email@example.com: Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective]
Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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...
> "We'd" == we would => implicit "if we (Debian as a whole) decide it"
You're still being incredibly disingenuous; what "we decide" isn't
terribly interesting or relevant because it totally dodges the issue
of feasibility and realism. You might as well be saying "we can make
world peace happen" and it'd be about as honest as saying "we can [put
infrastructure in place on the buildds for yet another distribution]".
Take pools for example; "we decide[d]" long ago that they were a good
idea, but that didn't mean jack-the-groove as it wasn't until two
years (or more) later they were actually implemented.
So if you want to talk seriously about some new distribution, try a
little less of the random and dismissive "that's not a problem, we can
do <foo>" unless you have someone ready to do <foo> and evidence that
they're capable of actually doing it.