On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:16:20PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> By the way, I would propose that we don't backport ocaml unless there is a
> major reason for doing it. This would really ease all other backports, and
> release the need to backport *all* stable ocaml modules against the
> backported ocaml.
>
> What does the team think of this ?
Written as this it sounds like an undeniable desirable property :-)
I mean: how do you define a "major reason"? The only reason I see, ever,
for a backport of ocaml is a new upstream release. Our upstream rarely
does releases for silly reasons, and releases tend to stay stable for
several months.
Is a new upstream release a major reason in your opinion?
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
I'm still an SGML person,this newfangled /\ All one has to do is hit the
XML stuff is so ... simplistic -- Manoj \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature