| 1 |
On 03/08/2013 13:43, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[snip] |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> I think the only real issue is the wording here. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
[snip] |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Agreed. Reading William's post, he's really just expressed in his own |
| 11 |
words what ~arch is all about: we accept the possibility of breakage. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Everything after the first two sentences is redundant - perhaps the |
| 14 |
protest is more about that and the unfamiliar wording than anything else. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I read it as an announcement of a new major version, and nothing more |
| 17 |
than that. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 21 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives