Bug#69311: PROPOSAL] Finishing the /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc transition.
(Side comment: Joey, setting mail-followup-to both the bug number and
the policy list, when the bug is a bug against policy, is really not a
great plan.)
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 03:23:39PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Have you read http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte-9909/msg00023.html and
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-ctte-9908/msg00038.html
> lately?
Yes, and I note that those were written in September of last year,
when we thought that Potato would release before the start of 2000.
It's now nearly September of 2000, and Potato has just been released.
We are much farther along in the transition than anyone would have
expected.
The tech committee's decision makes a lot of sense given their premise
that Potato was about to be released, and we wouldn't have time to
change all the packages. But that premise proved wrong, we did have
time to change the vast majority (over 80% by JH's count) of the
packages. We are, I suspect, just about where the ctte expected we
would be when Woody was about to freeze. (Both in degree of
preparedness and in actual calendric date.)
Now, if it's going to be impossible to discuss any of this without
restarting all the acrimony that happened last time, then I, for one,
will drop out of the debate immediately. But, we *did* just release
Potato, *far* later than we'd originally planned, and this *does* seem
like a perfect time to pause, catch our breath, and re-evaluate.
Things have *not* gone as planned so far. So, saying "stick with the
plan, stick with the plan" seems a bit myopic. We're already not
sticking with the plan, which involved releasing Potato in time for
Christmas '99, IIRC.
Personally, I'd like to see us achieve FHS compliance before I die of
old age. At the rate we're currently going, that seems a vain hope.
cheers
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
Reply to: