On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:38:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> >> [Charles Plessy]
> >> > The rationale is that the 8th is "old freeze deadline minus 10
> >> > days", so it was not completely unreasonnable to take thi
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html, the oldest package in
> NEW is 3 weeks old. 3 weeks ago was more than a full month after the
> original proposed base freeze date for etch[1].
That might be misleading, because the date is reset when
Le Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit :
> [Charles Plessy]
> > The rationale is that the 8th is "old freeze deadline minus 10
> > days", so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as
> > the deadline for having new packages in Etch.
>
> I find this comp
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:32:24PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Yes, this is my official position on the question (dunno about Andi's, I'm
> > replying to email off-line at the moment and haven't checked with him, but I
> > would guess his position is similar).
> > The only packages in NE
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
>> [Charles Plessy]
>> > The rationale is that the 8th is "old freeze deadline minus 10
>> > days", so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as
>> > the deadline for h
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
>> [Charles Plessy]
>> > The rationale is that the 8th is "old freeze deadline minus 10
>> > days", so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as
>> > the deadline for h
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Charles Plessy]
> > The rationale is that the 8th is "old freeze deadline minus 10
> > days", so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as
> > the deadline for having new packages in Etch.
> I find this complete
On Thursday 12 October 2006 22:22, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> So I would recommend against moving the freeze deadline to allow
> packages in NEW to enter.
I would guess for the most part package is NEW are not totally new
packages, but rather packages with a new upstream release that causes
(
[Charles Plessy]
> The rationale is that the 8th is "old freeze deadline minus 10
> days", so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as
> the deadline for having new packages in Etch.
I find this completely unreasonable. If someone waited that late in
the release process before upl
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:38:21 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Le Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
>>
>> For these reasons, we are delaying the full archive freeze for a few
>> days. We haven't chosen a date yet, but you can still expect it to
>> happen in October or
Le Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
>
> For these reasons, we are delaying the full archive freeze for a few days.
> We haven't chosen a date yet, but you can still expect it to happen in
> October or early November.
Dear Andreas,
May I suggest to delay the freeze a
11 matches
Mail list logo
