On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 01:38:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Enrique Zanardi writes ("Re: Release management - technical"):
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> ...
> > > I think we can only do one of these. With hamm we're doing the
> > > latter; in the future I think we should do the former.
> >
> > Fine, as long as we have some "long term goals" that must be achieved,
> > better sooner than later (FHS compliance, for example).
>
> NO! Absolutely not, if you're going to say `must be achieved'.
>
> I read `must be achieved' to mean `we will delay the release if these
> are not achieved'.
Oops. That's not what I wanted to express. Long-term goals shouldn't
delay the release.
> We are a volunteer organisation, and the last 13 months have shown us
> that you can't guilt people into doing things.
>
> We should continue to have `long term goals', and I applaud people who
> work towards them, but we must be able to make a release even when
> they are not met. It is better to have a release now and goals later
> than no release now and goals later !
I agree. An example of "long term goal" is "apt". We want to substitute
dselect with apt eventually, and there is a group of volunteers working
towards it, but that goal won't delay hamm's release..
--
Enrique Zanardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
