Re: LSB 3.0 and who's doing what?
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 13:25 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> I think this work around would only be needed for stable, unstable should be
> able to do 3.0 on it's own (and probably 2.0 at the same time).
I should point out that this was the conventional wisdom for woody vs.
sarge at one point. Now we are saying the same thing for sarge vs.
etch. Will we be saying the same thing for etch vs. etch+1? What will
prevent this from happening?
Other than this observation, though, I agree completely.