On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:45:29PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: > In both cases (with and without the choice), we're bound by the social > contract and may or may not diverge in practice. This choice doesn't > have any practical impact and doesn't change any rule or project > opinion.
I agree with you. We should do the right thing and abide by our foundation documents irrespective of the outcome of the vote. On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 08:44:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Are we? I mean, this stuff is already in the archive, in main, and as > far as I can tell, the release team can release from main at any point > in time they see fit (practical considerations notwithstanding). This is one of the only compelling arguments I have seen thus far. However, it seems to me that it is a far better idea to fix the problems in testing than to try to fix them in a stable release. If the kernel team, instead of letting Ben Hutchings's patches languish in the BTS, were to upload a fixed linux-2.6, and the release team were to hint it into lenny, I would change my vote. Since that is not at all what has happened, I find it strange that the release team thinks it should be trusted on this matter. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
