On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:54:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi Neil, > > On 04/11/14 at 17:53 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e > > [ ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system > > [ ] Choice 2: Support alternative init systems as much as possible > > [ ] Choice 3: Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers decide > > [ ] Choice 4: General Resolution is not required > > [ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > I must say that I am quite surprised by you choice of summary for Choice 2. > > First, that's the only one not to include a verb. It could be understood > as "Packages *must* support alternative init systems as much as > possible", which is clearly misleading. Also "as much as possible" is > not part of the amendment. > Choice 2 seems to be about 4 things: * The default init system on all arches should be supported, * maintainers should merge support for init systems, * sysvinit support should be maintained for all packages which worked before and any the release team should accept changes during the freeze which preserve or enhance this support This is obviously quite hard to put into one line. > > Second, after asking for an accurate summary, I replied in > <20141017202805.GA10561@xanadu.blop.info> (private mail to you+Ian, as > was your initial query) with: "support for alternative init systems is > desirable but not mandatory". If you disagreed with the suggestion, why > didn't you say so since Oct 17th? > Quite frankly, there's been one hell of a lot of mail during this process, which I've done my best to read and digest. The other option in that mail which you suggested was also quite contentious. I'd be happy with you sending the entire thread to the list if you and Ian agree. That entire thread seemed to then devolve with various accusations, and then you confusing my suggestions for Ian's text for your own. > If my suggestion is too long, you could have used any of the following, > which are all shorter or the same size as the summary for Choice 3: > - Support for alternative init systems is desirable, not mandatory > - Maintainers are encouraged to support alternative init systems That doesn't appear to capture the paragraph starting "For the Jessie release..." accurately. I discussed the final summaries with Kurt before the CfV, and we think that this is about as accurate as we could do given the very short amount of space available. This is also the reason I added a separate paragraph encouraging people to go and read the full proposals. > I think that it would be better to update the CfV. > Given the above, I don't believe that this would help the process. I feel that the summaries are as accurate as they can be at this time. > Also, it's a much more minor problem, but it seems that you missed my > second for the fourth proposal in <20141022054027.GA30495@xanadu.blop.info>. > Updated thanks, should be live when the website updates. Neil
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature