Re: Removal of transitional dummy packages
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > In this context, woody->sarge transition packages are just one
> > > form of useless cruft that we should strive to get rid of before
> > > the etch release. They're not the biggest source of cruft, but on
> > > the other hand they are (IMHO) one of the sources for which the
> > > proper course of action is clearest.
> > In such case, could we please codify that in policy?
> Surely the release manager's decision on the matter when properly
> publisized is information enough?
Do you think having this in policy may be harmful? If so, why?
We supported upgrades that skip releases in the past, and now we do
not (I suppose the fact that our release cycles are much longer have
something to do with this). Isn't this the kind of thing that we
usually document in policy?
If I have been rude in a previous message (sorry) is because I've seen
a wishlist item becoming a "RC bug" by way of "unknown" magic.