[ Not answering all occurrences, things got repeated a few times… ] Thomas Goirand <firstname.lastname@example.org> (06/04/2013): > I've wrote that we should at least address the issue, in a way or > another, through the next point release if that is safer. It is not. > But, are you seriously proposing that we leave the issue as-is ??? For wheezy, certainly. > Sure. And let's add the fix for the next point release if everyone > think it's not a good idea to fix it right now (though it's quite a > shame we can't). That's all I'm saying. Now is not the time, point releases are not the time. Next release cycle is perfect for considering such requests. > > Now is the time to release Wheezy, not the time to add cosmetic > > and disruptive fixes to it. > > I don't agree it is cosmetic. I'm not sure it's disruptive. It is disruptive, and that's what matters right now for wheezy; that means r0 but also later point releases. Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature