Christian Aichinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:06:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > Christian Aichinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Since that violates policy, the removal of /usr/bin/git > > > > As explained, I do not see why this violates policy, as the > > git shell script offers the git-core functionality. > > I think that reasoning is flawed. gitfm offers a different > functionality as git-scm. [...]
gitfm should not be registered as the alternative. > > What other way is there for a neat transition for stable users? > > As stated above I believe it violates policy, but I happen to think > that it's actually a really nice way to transition /usr/bin/git. As stated above, I think the belief in a policy violation is ill-founded. Also, if it's the best possible solution for a namespace collision/transition, maybe policy or dev-ref ought to be updated to include it explicitly? > So I'd propose to ask debian-release if we can tag this etch-ignore > or downgrade to important for the timeframe of etch. > > That would IMHO be the nicest solution for this. > > Comments? I'd downgrade to minor, on the basis that it doesn't affect the package's usefulness and is trivial to fix as needed, and tag it wontfix for now, adding fixed-upstream and pending when they become appropriate. Up to the main maintainer, IMO. Thanks, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
