> > > A part of the project is trying to send you the message that they want > > > you to release sarge on the original timescale, irrespective of > > > whether it gets completely purged of the non-free things that your > > > interpretation of the previous SC did not consider DFSG-critical.
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:42:53PM -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard > to say: > > So why don't any of the proposed GRs say this? On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:45:40PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: > Could you explain why this paragraph in proposal E is > insufficient? > > " In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that > release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to > release, and the previously released version is quite out of date, our > commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on > as planned - even while we are in the process of reaching compliance > with the new Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to > security releases and point releases as well." That one is fine -- I just forgot about that part of it. This is good enough that I'm now thinking I don't need to propose a new GR. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
