Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 06:15:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:11:31AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > > Personally, I'd say that now would be the time for any anti-payment
> > > people to say "we can do this better, and look, we'll prove it", and make
> > > up their own target date for etch, and demonstrate how much energy and
> > Now if only you could understand that we don't give a shit about the
> > release date, that would be a great step forward.
> > Only quality matters.
>
> Quality is not, and has never been, the question.
>
> The question is whether we can hit our quality target without forcing our
> users to put up with obsolete software -- either the previous release's
> because we keep delaying the release date, or the forthcoming release's
> because we have an overly extended freeze.
One way to help on this, would have been for example to have Steve Langasek to
actually cooperate with the kernel team when it was drafting the non-free
resolution back in august, instead of going its own inflamatory way, ignoring
everyone, and ensuring a month long flamewar which resulted in a mess, thus
echoing a preceding such event, with Steve's disastrous communication about
the vancouver event.
You where part of the vancouver discussion, and well, the methodology that
failed back then, is strangely repeated in how you handled this "experiment",
with obvious similar effect (months of flamewar, and demotivation of core
DDs).
Maybe you should take time to reflect on what you did, and learn something
from it. If you manage to do that, the "experiment" would indeed have served
something :). I would be, and i guess others would be too, very interested in
your self-analysis of how you handled this problem, and what you learned from
it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: