Le Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 01:28:59PM -0700, Chris Waters �crivait: > In the four years I've been running unstable, I've seen some minor > breakage here and there, but it's always been accidental, and always > fixed as soon as possible. I've never before seen someone seriously > suggest introducing massive breakage _deliberately_, and frankly, I'm > appalled to hear it now.
It's a pity we rehash the same discussion again and again. Gnome2 works, Gnome2 is "stable" as far as upstream is concerned. So Gnome2 can go in unstable ... Yes, it's not perfect because it won't reuse the old Gnome 1.4 configuration but the same happened before and not many people complained ... some other details (ex: dead keys in gnome-terminal) have to be corrected but that's what unstable is for, it's not like people will have non fonctionnal desktops. I use Gnome 2 daily and I'm quite happy with it. Let's go with Gnome 2 in unstable. But please, people, stop complaining without good reasons. And "joe random user wishes to keep Gnome 1.4" is not a good reason ... he can keep Gnome 1.4 with woody. Cheers, -- Rapha�l Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
