Re: Re: Is oldstable security support duration something to be proud of?

[Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com>]

> On Mon 10 Mar 2008 19:05:44 Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > Le March 10, 2008 04:44:35 pm Noah Meyerhans, vous avez écrit :
>
> [...]

> > > I don't care if you think we
> > > shouldn't be proud.  We are and we will continue to be.
> > My point is not to tell you to stop being proud, it's to avoid 
> bragging in
> > public communications. You can be as proud as you want.
>
> They can surely be proud of having accomplished a great feat, 
> according to (at
> *least*) everyone that bothered to give you any kind of answer. It's not
> about just one number, it's about the work it takes to make it. And it 
> surely
> isn't small, as the calculation of packages*months indicated, and 
> basically
> every other point I've seen given so far.
>
> I think now is a good time to say "I'm sorry", but no one can force 
> you to it.
I'm sorry, but I don't see what I could be sorry about. I did not write 
that the work required to support oldstable was small.

> People can only killfile you instead.
>
> Oh, and before I forget:
>
>
> > If there's anything I wrote that implies it annoys me that 3.1 won't be
> > supported after March 31st, please let me know.
>
> You said from your carefully picked numbers, that Debian "score" is 
> "worse",
> even though that means nothing really, according to the replies that 
> message
> got.
So?

> worse
>      adj 1: (comparative of `bad') inferior to another in quality or
>             condition or desirability; "this road is worse than
>             the first one we took"; "the road is in worse shape
>             than it was"; "she was accused of worse things than
>             cheating and lying" [ant: better]