| 1 |
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 22:37 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I think that before this all, we first and all need to get absolutely clear |
| 3 |
> > what we want to do with these keywords. As a package maintainer I know that |
| 4 |
> > it can sometimes be displeasing when other archs mark your package as |
| 5 |
> > stable. I do however not think that we need to spend that much effort on |
| 6 |
> > the problem. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > If we want to spend the effort we however should first make clear the |
| 9 |
> > purpose, not just make clear what the arch maintainer's keyword is without |
| 10 |
> > making it clear what is the purpose of this knowledge. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That's probably the most rational thing I've heard in this entire debate - not |
| 13 |
> that it has all been irrational... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I found it to be most effortless comment so far, because all the reasons |
| 16 |
are laid out perfectly fine so far in this thread. This is basicly just |
| 17 |
QA, no more reasons needed than that. The implementation policy wise has |
| 18 |
also been dealt with, i have no clue whatsoever he wants explained that |
| 19 |
hasn't been most thoroughly scrutinized already. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And I wasn't gonna answer, because that tends to get another reply and |
| 22 |
another one, but I can't keep myself from replying here. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- foser |
Archives