On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote: > > I note that it took you 16 days to reply, and that you seem to want to > > build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to > > make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to > > release 3.1r1?) and 3.1r2. May I ask why? > > It seemed obvious to me. If uploads to s-p-u are blocked for approval by > the SRM, this needs to happen just after a point release so that s-p-u is > empty > to start with the new system (probably because once a package is in s-p-u, > there's no easy way to remove it and removing manually doesn't make much > sense).
And that's a reason to delay a point release? If what you write is true, the IMO sensible approach would be to delay implementation of the new queue stuff until the next point release, not the other way round. Additionally, where can I read up about the new queue scheme? Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
