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

Re: Sarge release (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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 ?

I don't see it as a decision yet.  That's the whole point.  If I thought it
was a "it is too late to change it now, deal with it" kind of process, I
would be just as steamed as you appear to be.

> > 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.

Well, if it is done the other way, you get utter lack of respect from
maintainers that can't even read the damn thing twice and think about it
before firing their guns (and you end up with a flamewar just as well).

They chose the "post a brief report and answer everything else when it comes
up" way.  Some of it was poorly worded, but that's actually something I have
learned to expect in Debian and I try to ignore it as much as I can, so that
I can focus on the technical stuff (it is not like I would have done it any
better :P).

Let's fix this proposal so that the tier-2 archs are actually useable (even
if that means we need tier-3 and tier-4), and see what more we can improve
about it...

  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Reply to: