1 |
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Anthony G. Basile |
2 |
<basile@××××××××××××××.edu> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> ditto. I want this debated in the community, ie, I want to hear the |
5 |
> community say "all the preperation for dropping support ... are complete". |
6 |
|
7 |
The community will never say that, just like no community ever said |
8 |
"hey, we need a source-based linux distro!" |
9 |
|
10 |
Progress and change gets initiated by individuals or small teams, and |
11 |
the community always has to play catch up. That's just how change and |
12 |
innovation works. |
13 |
|
14 |
The role of the community is to say why preparations AREN'T complete. |
15 |
The default needs to be action, not inaction. If we only change |
16 |
things when a majority are clamoring for change, then I suggest that |
17 |
anybody cares about running an interesting distro fork Gentoo now. |
18 |
This isn't CentOS, and we're not going to backport patches to linux |
19 |
2.4 until 95% of our customers agree that whatever proprietary blob |
20 |
they're using is ready for 2.6. |
21 |
|
22 |
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see debate. However, williamh made a |
23 |
proposal, and if somebody wants to argue that we aren't ready yet then |
24 |
they need to step up and do it. That is how every court in the world |
25 |
works, as far as I know (if you don't show up, you don't get a say). |
26 |
I'm not really chomping at the bit to see stuff move to /usr, but if |
27 |
people have a reason to ask for inaction, they need to voice it, and |
28 |
not just ask everybody else to pass time. If there is a reason to |
29 |
hold things up I'll be the first to agree to hold things up, but there |
30 |
has to be a reason, otherwise I'll probably support WONTFIXing any |
31 |
separate-/usr regressions on existing packages, not putting any |
32 |
restrictions on packages that weren't stable more than a year ago, and |
33 |
allowing large changes to packages older than that if they can be |
34 |
justified. |
35 |
|
36 |
Rich |