On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:16 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:54:09 -0500, Andres Salomon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:32:42 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> I'm a bit disappointed how the decision has been made. I would have >> >>*Is* it a decision, or is it a proposal? The wording is unclear. > > I don't think it is unclear at all. The powers that decide have > shifted a little bit, but they still decide without consulting the > developer body, which is _very_ disappointing. > >
There is talk on IRC about this being a proposal (coming from people that were present at the meeting). *shrug*. >>I personally think the idea is a good one; maintainers can concentrate on >>common architectures, and we can potentially have a sane release cycle. >>Meanwhile, porters can have full control of when and what they release, >>without being constricted by others' deadlines and such. Unfortunately, >>the naming (second class citizen?), and the feeling that their >>architectures are no longer "officially supported", means that people will >>view this as a negative thing. > > Additionally, they are being excluded from having access to important > resources, and the possibility of filing RC bugs which is the only way > to get lazy maintainers moving is being taken away. > That's an awfully pessimistic view. All porters need is some sort of leverage that allows them to force maintainers to accept or deal w/ their patches; perhaps some QA team members who will NMU poorly-maintained packages on behalf of porters? The amd64 crew seems to be getting along ok w/out having their FTBFS bugs considered RC.. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
