Steve,
I am very sorry, I did not see the paragraph. I will familiarize myself
with the debate system before contributing to it again.
Happy New Years,
Cameron Norman
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Steve Langasek <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 01:54:17AM -0008, cameron wrote:
I actually added that to the statement. I did so because it has
legitimate uses, and because it is something that a number of people
have expressed interest in using.
Right, I never wrote that. I've reverted these changes to the
position
statement.
Cameron, as per the first paragraph, please do not change the page
directly,
but discuss any proposed changes with me first.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a
Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the
world.
Ubuntu Developer
http://www.debian.org/
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Josselin Mouette <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Le dimanche 29 décembre 2013 à 22:50 -0800, Steve Langasek a
écrit
>:
>> Socket-based activation has never been a feature that upstart
>>upstream has
>> promoted the use of.
>>
>I am a bit confused here. You wrote in the upstart position
statement,
>almost at the top:
> “Upstart supports both bus activation and socket
>activation.”
>
>Why advertise it if it is “a red herring that will never deliver
the
>promised benefits”?
>
>--
>.''`. Josselin Mouette
>: :' :
>`. `'
> `-
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>[email protected]
>Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1388541387.6302.16.camel@tomoe
>
>
