Re: (Non-)Usefulness of the current for-wheezy and fit-for-wheezy usertags
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: (Non-)Usefulness of the current for-wheezy and fit-for-wheezy usertags
- From: Paul Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:57:15 +0800
- Message-id: <CAKTje6GwbZStfnag1yx2y=tsvSkBto-LXEqdAr2ujoJFKJBZ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <CANTw=MMCH15M0Cx728pFMLOH1_zOQ0cYjnjN=MQWzNTCr=mMqw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CANTw=MO7h+tOXo1a8cLEgh84pDL3mX-jVKBCNHMjEUp1RBvGuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKTje6HJD8d+MAQDdKZ7UDLD--dYCaETaWJnpgJx4Xu1GZU6cg@mail.gmail.com> <CANTw=MMCH15M0Cx728pFMLOH1_zOQ0cYjnjN=MQWzNTCr=mMqw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> I am certainly well aware of the freeze policy. My remains: why do we
> have two categorization systems? What does the intended for wheezy
> stuff actually get us that is more important than the original rc,
> itp, etc. categorization? When I'm looking at something to
> potentially sponsor, those are the parameters I'm interested in, not
> whether the existing thing is meant for wheezy or ready for wheezy.
> If it doesn't meet those criteria, a discussion in the bug log can
> resolve that.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but my point was that maybe
there is a subset of sponsors who are interested in helping the
release in general (and are thus interested in the for-wheezy tag)
rather than only interested in fixing RC bugs.
I don't see the use of the fit-for-wheezy tag though.