"Bernhard R. Link" <[email protected]> writes: > * Steve Langasek <[email protected]> [110604 05:27]:
>> If we're willing to flip the switch on the autobuilders and force >> maintainers to deal with the breakage, we don't need a policy "should" >> either... we can go straight to a policy "must" as soon as the switch >> is flipped (and we should flip that switch *ASAP*, not let this >> question drag on any further into the release cycle). > Having seen this discussion now for almost a decade with people claiming > smooth transitions coming really soon, I think this is the only way > unless someone can actually show something for the buildds working now > (and not in some months, because it has been months for years now). Agreed. I really don't think it would be that big of a deal, particularly right now early in the release cycle. We could pick some point where there aren't a lot of ongoing transitions, give people a few weeks of advance warning, and throw an NMU party, and we'd be done. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
