Anthony Towns wrote: > Return-Path: <debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:07:54AM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:24:05AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > Note the line in update_excuses which reads "taking my time about glibc". > > Which means what, exactly? It's just a bit vague, don't you think? > > It means what it says, it's not precise because the concept it defines > (namely, that it's going to go in... some time) isn't very precise. > > It's being looked at; unfortunately various other packages are still > adversely affected by the changes. News'll be available when it exists. Thanks for the update. If "various other packages are still adversely affected", that would seem to suggest that you know what those packages are. Would it be too much trouble for you to post the list to d-d-a, and perhaps post updates from time to time (say, approximately weekly)? This would let everyone know what's going on, and give us an indication of progress. In turn, you would be able to spend less time reading and responding to threads like this one. On the whole, I would think it would be a win for everyone. As you no doubt recall, there was a similar situation with the woody release, which was delayed for quite some time due to the need for a new security update infrastructure, among other things. You took the same attitude of "you'll get news when there is some", which left many people dissatisfied then, and presumably will be no more satisfying now. The real problem here is that you seem to think that there is no news until the work is done -- that there is no value in periodic updates on what problems have been solved, and which ones remain. I don't suggest that you spend a great deal of your time (which is, of course, volunteer time) keeping us all up to date with detailed hourly reports, but isn't an occasional email simply listing the packages that still have problems (a list which you could build once, then remove items from as issues are resolved) little enough to ask for? I appreciate that knowing which packages still have problems does not lead directly to a prediction of when the last problem will be fixed. The point here, though, is to let everyone see concretely that progress is being made, and that there are fewer problems this week than there were last week or the week before, rather than to predict when glibc 2.3 will finally enter testing. Thanks, Craig
Attachment:
pgp3CdMFJ9H0u.pgp
Description: PGP signature