Hi, I feel that there is a clarification missing here:
* Santiago Vila ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050620 12:48]: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Andreas Barth wrote: > > - "don't second-guess your own freeze guidelines and update gettext just > > because Santiago tells you it's safe, because then you'll be kicking > > yourself for making gcc-3.3 FTBFS." > Hmm, my name in the second thing we learned from sarge? :-) > > Honestly, I don't think it would be fair to blame vorlon or myself for > the gcc/gettext incident. I admit part of the blame for not reading > upstream changelog carefully enough, but gettext was not the single > reason for the FTBFS, as it was uploaded for unstable two months > before I requested it to enter sarge, and there are maybe-successful > builds of gcc-3.3 in buildd.debian.org using the "new" gettext (>= 0.14.2), > so I would say that things are not so simple. Well, please allow me to explain how it was meant: We were speaking about better coordination, and we discussed what we want to avoid. It was only meant as an example what didn't work out as nice as we all (and I guess also you :) wanted. I intend to put the minutes directly on the website (though not now), and perhaps I'll be able to put it in better words than. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
