On Monday 12 October 2015 12:31:31 Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > And is actively developed upstream. AFAIK, the 0.2.x branch is > deprecated and won't receive any bugfix / feature.
This is true although I'm not happy with support of 3.x either... As a matter of fact 0.2.x stopped receiving updates long before 3.x was announced. Yet even now 0.2.x is more mature than 3.x... > I'll just point that very few of the GNOME-3 apps have reached > feature-parity with their corresponding GNOME-2 / MATE version, which > makes me question whether an upload to testing / unstable will *ever* > happen. At least, according to your standards. As I've said, I think/hope that eventually Gitg-3 will be ready for "unstable". Upload to "unstable" may happen sooner if something (e.g. library upgrade) break Gitg-2 beyond repair... Though I do not expect Gitg-3 performance to improve so speed/slowness is not a blocker... > We are also diverging from the official statement of Debian unstable > providing "the latest and greatest" [1]. > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable I do not recognise a conflict here. IMHO it is more important to ensure usability of packages in "unstable". Perhaps you are right and having both (Gitg-2 and Gitg-3) at the same time could be a solution in a short term... > Anyway, you made your position very clear and I believe further > discussion would be a wasted effort on my end. Actually I'm almost with you. Upgrade to new Gitg-3 is inevitable. We are merely disagree regarding when to do it. :) > Despite our disagreement on the subject of this bug report, I take this > opportunity to thank you for maintaining gitg in Debian. Thank you very much for your kind words. -- Best wishes, Dmitry Smirnov. --- The most fatal blow to progress is slavery of the intellect. The most sacred right of humanity is the right to think, and next to the right to think is the right to express that thought without fear. -- Helen H. Gardner, "Men, Women and Gods"
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
