On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:56:33PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If we aren't really running
> into resource constraints linked to the architecture count, it's a poor use
> of people's time to have to redeploy all of the ftp-master infrastructure on
> a separate host.
True. I would rather like to see the m68k porters to spend their time on
real porting issues than on establishing the infrastructure that is needed
because of the immanent drop.
> > If you disagree - please provide sane alternative suggestions.
> In the absence of an explanation why this change is needed, I suggest "don't
> change what's not broken" as a sane alternative.
I believe that changing the release scheme to not release the whole archive
in one release but do some sort of subreleases (base, X, database, ...) is
not going to be considered as "sane alternative"... ;)
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
