Re: changing priorities
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 03:45:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:22:59PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If not, I object to any change in the priority system until we achieve
> > a consistent system with the current priorities.
> Heh. I don't think we can get a consistent system until we make our
> priorities make sense. :)
Hmm, while I'm sympathetic to the proposal, I have to say that I think
Santiago may have a point here. Adding another priority to squabble
over may not make things anyone's job any easier, and could end up
merely provoking whole new groups of flamewars.
I think the proposal is worth considering, but I think that at the
*very* least, we should deal with the task-* package namespace mess
first, and get *that* straightened out before adopting a policy that
task-* packages define priorities.
So, can I suggest that we table this for the moment, and come back to
it when the time is right? I think it's a fine idea long term, but at
the moment, I think it would be a nightmare.
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@dsp.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: