On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 02:49:55PM +0000, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Who should have that authority, then? The DEP-0 proposers? Since the whole DEP
> process itself is still in CANDIDATE, we could end up in an interesting
> situation if/when it comes to migrate *that* to ACCEPTED ☺
>
> DEP-0 merely says
>
> > consensus exists that the implementation has been a success
>
> Perhaps that needs unpacking.
You're probably right ... but let's resist the temptation of caring more
about processes than substance.
Does anyone have further comments about DEP-3? If so, please state
them. Otherwise, let's forget about the process details (no matter if
they could have been better or not) and rejoice for a nice standard way
of adding useful metadata to patches in the Debian archive.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature