On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:51PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing > here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after > the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help > you or anybody.
I don't see how even option 1 would have delayed Lenny. I just see that it would have forced a few patches to be applied. But we got option 5 instead. You claim this has delayed Lenny. Please explain how. > It *is* clear that a substantial majority of DDs want > us to release Lenny soon rather than attempt to fix every last > issue. Please drop it for now. You're writing with the assumption that fixing DFSG violations is fundamentally incompatible with releasing Lenny soon. I can see that this could be true for some cases, where critical functionality is affected, but for most of them (including firmware) I don't see any correlation. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
