On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 12:09:45AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Bernhard R. Link <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: > > * Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> [040920 19:46]: > >> Serving our users is more important than slavish adherance to leaving > >> stable almost untouched. > > And trying to give our users a system that will not suddenly stop > > working is not serving them? > I can't see how providing functionality that may possibly become reduced > is worse than failing to provide that functionality in the first place. > Appropriate warnings would be necessary, of course. Warnings can only mitigate so much. It's a frequent occurrence that users will use, and then come to depend on, features for no better reason than that they're available. There are certainly cases where I would argue that not shipping a package is therefore better than shipping it with the expectation that it will soon be removed. However, I don't think our principal web browser ever falls into this category. That would send an unequivocal message that Debian's stable releases are not suitable for use as a desktop, under any circumstances. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature