Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
On Sat, 22 May 2004 13:04:34 +0200, Bill Allombert <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>>> In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that
> release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close
> to release, and the previously released version is quite out of
> date, our commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release
> should go on as planned - even while we are in the process of
> reaching compliance with the new Social Contract. This exemption for
> "Sarge" applies to security releases and point releases as well. >>
> Which imply that 2004_003 _did_ modify the meaning of the SC, which
> I do not believe. For me it was just an editorial change. Being a
> mathematician, I feel unacceptable to support a statement I do not
> hold for true.
Whether or not it changed the SC is a matter for debate; but
it is undisputed that the policies of the project did change
drastically due to that GR. What would you suggest that paragraph
should say in order to acknowledge that the GR caused something to
change; and we need tgime to meet the changed release policy in view
of the changes in the sc, which some hold to be merely editorial?
The man who sees, on New Year's day, Mount Fuji, a hawk, and an
eggplant is forever blessed. Old Japanese proverb
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C