On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:23:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:15:00PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:35:51PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:19:32PM +0100, Pete van der Spoel wrote: > > > > > Or is the whole Ubuntu thing (where I understand Mark Shuttleworth has hired > > > > > a large number of the senior Debian developers) considered to be the > > > > > solution to this problem? > > > > > > > > Hiring developers away from a project, so that they no longer spend > > > > time on it, is not normally considered a good solution. > > > > > > Fortunately, that is not the case with Canonical. > > > > Yes it is. Fork and forget is Canonical's modus operandi (despite all > > the PR claiming otherwise). > > Sounds like someone is ticked off that there's somebody out there who cares > about regular releases of an Arch client, and making one that's usable by > someone other than revision control gurus... Try X. baz is one of the few things Canonical funds that is actually being done right (so far), and it's no thanks to the company for that. Alternatively, try cscvs, which was effectively stalled for months. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature