On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 07:47:21PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Your analysis is quite good.
Ok, thank you. > > But, really, I don't see the technical side of this issue. All the > > "badness" is being confined to unstable, and it looks like the handling > > of the problems in unstable falls within our historical practices and > > guidelines. Or did I miss something? > > No, you missed nothing. In any case the badness will be confined in > unstable. This seems to me to mean that the best action, on the part of the committee, would be to do nothing. > I gave 3 ways to make the transition happen, I've been advocating for > the first solution (it's Christian Marillat's prefered solution too). > But not everyone agreed with us, they are asking for the second > solution ... I proposed a third solution as an alternate way that may > help resolve the conflict. > > I only want the technical committee to decide for us which of the three > solutions is the best. At the moment, "the best" seems to be "let the package maintainer continue working on the problem." > > Can we fall back on 6.3.5 here? [That is: we're being asked to make a > > decision, but couldn't we be pushing back and asking for more detailed > > proposals?] > > I really don't know what you need more... you have to be more precise in > what you need. What's ironic is that these two paragraphs say essentially the same thing. Thanks, -- Raul
