On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 09:02:12AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> I would, for example, have classified the discussions / arguments in the
> "systemd-sysv | systemd-shim" bug which appears to have recently been
> resolved by TC decision as being an example of what I thought was being
> referred to by the original "bitter rearguard action" reference:
> fighting over the implementation details in an attempt to maintain as
> much ground for non-systemd as possible.
I was really confused that this needed to go to the TC; from what I
could tell, it had no downside systems using systemd, and it made
things better on non-systemd systems. What was the downside of making
the change, and why did it have to go to the TC instead of the
maintainer simply accepting the patch?
If this is an examble of "bitter rearguard action", my sympathies
would be on thouse who are trying to keep things working on
non-systemd systems....
Am I missing something?
- Ted
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141116221147.ga9...@thunk.org
