On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:04:32AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: Hi, > 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 Bye, Guido
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature