hey andrew, On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 13:17 +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote: > The fact that it includes stuff to support such a situation suggests > that it should _not_ be put into experimental, it should be unleashed > upon 'unstable' immediately. the biggest inhibitor lately is that i have a really, really full plate right now with my other debian stuff, so i haven't had much time to devote to it. > When can we look forward to a release which we can usably depend on, and > which we can all improve in parallel, rather than waiting on your > solitary search for perfection. well, for the "improving in parallel" part of that, it *is* in an svn repository, after all :) if more people were interested in using it (and ideally helping develop/maintain it) i don't have a problem with unleashing it on unstable as long as there's an agreement that i don't want it in etch. at least until it's had a chance to prove itself, the "api" and behaviour stabilize, bugs are shaken out, etc. but i'd rather assume that it's not going to be in etch, which de-stresses me a bit and lets me keep priorities straight on the stuff i do want to get done before etch goes out the door. sean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part