(Side comment: Joey, setting mail-followup-to both the bug number and the policy list, when the bug is a bug against policy, is really not a great plan.)
On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 03:23:39PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Have you read http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte-9909/msg00023.html and > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-ctte-9908/msg00038.html > lately? Yes, and I note that those were written in September of last year, when we thought that Potato would release before the start of 2000. It's now nearly September of 2000, and Potato has just been released. We are much farther along in the transition than anyone would have expected. The tech committee's decision makes a lot of sense given their premise that Potato was about to be released, and we wouldn't have time to change all the packages. But that premise proved wrong, we did have time to change the vast majority (over 80% by JH's count) of the packages. We are, I suspect, just about where the ctte expected we would be when Woody was about to freeze. (Both in degree of preparedness and in actual calendric date.) Now, if it's going to be impossible to discuss any of this without restarting all the acrimony that happened last time, then I, for one, will drop out of the debate immediately. But, we *did* just release Potato, *far* later than we'd originally planned, and this *does* seem like a perfect time to pause, catch our breath, and re-evaluate. Things have *not* gone as planned so far. So, saying "stick with the plan, stick with the plan" seems a bit myopic. We're already not sticking with the plan, which involved releasing Potato in time for Christmas '99, IIRC. Personally, I'd like to see us achieve FHS compliance before I die of old age. At the rate we're currently going, that seems a vain hope. cheers -- Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into | this .signature file.
