On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 08:42:17AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 09:55:08PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Ok, so how can we phrase this less "spiteful", still short and
> > > accurate? I never used the word "botching" before so I can't
> > > judge if it's offending or not, but its translation seemed to
> > > fit in what I thought.
> > botch
> > n : an embarrassing mistake [syn: {blunder}, {blooper}, {bloomer},
> > {bungle}, {foul-up}, {fuckup}, {flub}, {boner}, {boo-boo}]
> > Why would we want to commemorate an embarrassing mistake?
> We don't want to celebrate it,
Obviously. Why would we even want to commemorate it?
> but it's an important date since
> it finally says that there was no Debian 1.0 and never will be.
How does that make the date important? Should we also commemorate
whenever it was we decided not to jump from 1.3 to 5.0 to match Red
Hat? Should we likewise commemorate the date when we decided to make
hamm 2.0 or woody 3.0, thus ensuring there'd never be a Debian 1.4 or
a Debian 2.3? Sure, the Infomagic thing is an interesting factoid that
can go in debian-history (and indeed, is already there), but it's not
a day worth remembering each year.
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.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Attachment:
pgpCxvHIxqRx9.pgp
Description: PGP signature