On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Well, except _not_ to abet the hostile takeover of a > project name that has been around since ... I don't know, > but the Debian package goes back to 1997. In what way is it hostile? Do you really believe that leaving things the way they are is in the best interest of our users? > I know git is the awesomest thing since tla, but I'm > disappointed that 8 or 9 years of seniority did not, in > the end, count for anything. I believe the upstream was last modified in 1997. So that's 12 years of "seniority", but it's also 12 years in which the upstream source was essentially unmaintained. If we really did decide that our priority was packages, rather than users, I'd hope some other metric than age was used to resolve any such conflicts. -- Jon Dowland
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature