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