On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:27:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > And that's a reason to delay a point release? On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:30:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > And what is the problem to introduce that with 3.1r3 or even 3.1r4? > (Though of course the original mail should still be answered, but why is > this a blocking point for the point release?) On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:47:53PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Anwyay it looks like aj is ready to implement it now, so I don't see why > Joey would refuse that. But the relation between aj and Joey are quite > complicated [1], and maybe aj is trying to get the required input now by > postponing the stable release so that Joey has a good reason to reply. On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:39:52PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Why does it need to happen directly after r2? > Why can't it happen after r3? > Why is the SRM not informed in February that that queue changes are a predependency? > Is this a pre-dependency for the next stable update? Uh, what the hell? I sent the mail requesting input and advising the relevant teams of the changes on the 22nd of Feb to make sure that it _wouldn't_ delay the update that Joey had previously indicated would be coming at the end of Feb or early March. The reason to do it now is to reduce the potential for delays in future. This is why I hate trying to talk about things on Debian lists, for reference. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature