Hi Petter, On Samstag, 23. Januar 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > It is obvous that I believe some vital features are missing, while you > do not. It is not obvous to me which one of us are right, but it is > on the other hand also quite clear to me that I do not have close > contact with school administration and thus do not really know what is > important for schools to have included. > > So I sought guidence with Ole Anders Thanks for that. > , who admin a school network every > day, and he convinced me that these new proxy and web browser default > page settings are not vital for the Lenny release. So I realise that > you are right and I am wrong. And for that obviously too. > Also, I find that you have been doing a very good job at motivating us > all to get the Lenny release ready, and I hope you will find the > motivation to continue to do so now that we are so close. :) Thanks, I'll try (and manage). Thank you also for doing an awesome job is debugging and fixing stuff, and also for introducing new features, without your work we would neither be ready to release nor have such a good "product". And of course also for realising and reverting now. I think we should go with branches for our first point release now, it's useful to commit fixes for problems we find now, just not to the branch which should be released in two weeks :-) So I'd propose to use a (to be created) lenny branch (for those packages which need it) now, for the stuff which should go into our first point release. (And trunk for the time being for the first lenny release.) Then, when we released lenny, we can use the lenny branch for the first point release, update trunk (to the lenny branch) and start developing for squeeze in trunk. Does that make sense? cheers, Holger
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.