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

Re: failure to communicate

[ Not answering all occurrences, things got repeated a few times… ]

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: