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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR


Dne Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:45:47 +1100
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> napsal(a):

> Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > If we do all this, we would be voting:
> >
> > A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
> > which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
> > issues or what have you).  This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
> >
> > B) If we want to allow sourceless firmware in Debian, defining
> > firmware in a way that doesn't give a waiver to anything else without
> > source. This is also from now on, not just for Lenny. But it's only
> > for firmware, not for everything with licensing problems.
> >
> > C) If we want to allow stuff with some problems into Lenny, as we
> > already did for Sarge and Etch.
> >
> > These three issues are obviously related, but are NOT the same issue,
> > a positive result in one does not determine what happens to the
> > others.  And creating one mega ballot with all the different
> > possibilities, only creates confusion and frustration.  So, this
> > should be three independent ballots.
> >   
> I think the concern is, what if the results conflict?
> e.g. if we get a "No" for (C) but Yes for (A). We trust the release team 
> to make the right choices but we don't trust them to make the right 
> choices for Lenny?
> My suggestion would be to vote for (C) first, and then decide the 
> wording on (A) and (B) depending on the outcome of (C). In which case, 
> even if there is a conflict, the wording can clarify if the second vote 
> overrides or doesn't override the first result.

This makes sense. I really do not like way current vote mixes different

	Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: