Re: kernel firmwares: GR proposal
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 09:21:12AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Further, because this amounts to a decision to disregard the SC, it
> > should require a 3:1 majority.
> It's not disregarding the SC, it's clarifying the fact that we need more
> time to create the proper infrastructure that will allow us to support the
> hardware *and* to respect our principles.
Sure, its disregarding the SC, and furthermore, disregarding the last of the
three pre-sarge GRs which granted an exception only for sarge and not etch.
> So I don't think it's a 3:1 issue. We're not changing our goals, only
> clarifying the timeline and acknowledging that the etch timeframe is too
> short for us to reach this goal.
It still is a 3:1 issue, but Manoj will be the one knowing best about this.
> Being a volunteer project, we can't guarantee that this problem won't
> arise again with etch+1, but I hope that all people who have expressed
> concerns here, will help the kernel/d-i team and make it a reality for