Re: Sarge release (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:44:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yes, but the utherly arrogant and despreciating way in how this announcement
> Chill out. It was a RFC, and it was labelled as such. It may not be perfect,
> and obviously it will see some (many?) changes yet. But it was NOT arrogant
> or depreciating.
> Some of it could have used a lot more thought (the need for a tier-1.5 where
> there is full support but a reduced mirror set is *obvious* in hindsight
> IMHO), but that's the idea behind requesting comments.
Where are the minutes of the discussion, where are detailed explanation of the
problems trying to be sovled ? Where is a call to alternative solution ? Where
is a call for help from the arch porters for security and infrastructure
issues ? Given that things are like they are in big part because such help was
rejected in the paste, how do you not see this as a decision which doesn't
care for the non-tier1 ports ?
> > No data on what exactly the problems where, no data on the correlation of
> > those problems on the proposed drastic solutions, no minutes of the meeting,
> > no previous announcement to involve the porters, nothing.
> Since it is a RFC, that is not needed, as we ARE obviously going over all
> that anyway, and trying to do it beforehand *is* an utterly useless effort
> the way Debian mailinglist threads usually work.
Doing it this way is an utter lack of respect for the debian maintainers not
in the inner circle.