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

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for December 12, 2003



On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:18:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > (It should be non-buggy, 1 < 3; and even
> > > if the bug you describe existed, it would be 3 > 2, not 1 > 0.)
> > Uh, no, it's not "non-buggy" if it has RC bugs. If gjdoc has an RC bug,
> > it's not suitable for testing or release. Fix that now. The "less buggy"
> > stuff should be considered an optimisation, if it doesn't hit your package
> > when it should, the solution is to fix the RC bugs in your package.
> Why are you arguing with one of your release deputies[1] on a public
> mailing list, instead of working out procedures as a group, and present
> coherent and consistent recommendations to the rest of the Project?

Huh? Why are you trying to discourage transparency?

To answer your question, I posted to -devel and -release because I expect
other people are drawing the same wrong conclusions.

> It's been almost four months since Joey H., Colin W., and Steve L. were
> officially deputized; I would have thought this sort of thing would have
> been hashed out by now.

People always make mistakes, no matter how long they've been doing
something. It's no big deal.

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.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: pgp1Ra90B9PdO.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: