You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the
rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere did I
suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.
And how do you define crappier releases? If something is stable enough
that the development team decide to mark a release that is up to them,
not you which is similar to what you noted about this being *your*
process, that is *theirs*.
Edward Lopez-Acosta
On 4/5/19 7:08 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this
due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason
(lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the
project)? Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this
unlocked so people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?
Our process. *OUR* process. This is not your process. Meaning it
isn't your decision.
While they may exist I know of no other project, including OS, that halt
development like this for long, if at all, to do a release. Again, they
may exist I just don't know of any and find the process awkward and
confusing.
Other projects split their developers between "making the release" and
"working on the future", and as a result they take a long time to make
crappier releases.
That's their choice.
It is not our choice.
It is *NOT YOUR CHOICE*, and you don't have standing to comment.
