[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:04:32AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:


> Let me see if I understand correctly:
> Debian revises its SC to remove an ambiguity.  The release manager
> applies the new terms to the next major release of Debian.  People
> disagree with that, and instead want to override his decision so that
> sarge will intentionally breach the SC.
> And you say reverting the changes would be bad publicity?

Well, the clarifications made are orthogonal with the actual release.

Since, as others have pointed out, woody from the clarified SC point of
view is no better than sarge, delaying sarge itself to make it "perfect"
woudn't make any justice to our users.

It's quite better if we actually release sarge (which breaches the
social contract no more than woody does) and then fix the issues and
release sarge+1 as soon as possible SC-compliant.

Let's see it from the point of view of the timeline:

year	no-GR	GR
2002	woody	woody
2004	--	sarge
2005	sarge*	sarge+1*

* == SC compliant

stable users will get a debian version SC complaiant on the same year. The
only difference if the GR passes is that there will be one more version,
which will be better than the previous one technically, but not from the
point of view of compliance...

the fact that the relevant bug before the GR wheren't closed nor downgraded 
from RC-severity but tagged sarge-ignore shows that we already had the
policy to deal with that problems (and we considered them problems) after
sarge. The clarification on the wording of the SC shoud be orthogonal to
that decision.

I'm not saying that decision was right... simply that it's too late to
change it... We have been inactive on that issues on the ground that we
decided to "release first, deal later", the editorial changes to the SC
doesn't change this fact



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: