On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:55:35PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The fact there was a precedent for this? When we first > adopted the DFSG, we did not throw out everything all at once -- > indeed, there was a release within a few days of adoption of the > DFSG, and that release certainly did not meet the DFSG and the new > social contract. According to the debian-announce archives, Debian 1.3 (bo) was released on 5th June 1997, and the Social Contract and DFSG were adopted a month later on 4th July 1997. The Social Contract announcement claims that it was refined during June. The debian-private archives for June 1997 seem to confirm this, with the first call for interest happening on the the 9th of June (after bo was released), and the final vote on the finished text going out on the 30th June, with the results announced to -private on the 5th of July. Hamm wasn't released until 23rd July 1998; Debian 1.3.1 (a point release of bo, which included XFree86 3.3 to fix "a number of known security bugs and other problems in X") went out on the 8th July. See: http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1997/msg00013.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1997/msg00017.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1997/msg00018.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1998/msg00015.html TTBOMK hamm complied with the social contract to the best of our abilities. I wasn't aware that bo didn't, but I wasn't around to know. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature