On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:38:29PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > >> Sure that's good. It stops to be that good when they're obviously > >> trying hard to impose their employer's agenda on the Project. > > > > Sarge was already very late before Ubuntu existed. Our mirror network was > > already strained before Ubuntu existed. Our release team was struggling to > > get > > sarge out before Ubuntu existed. Our security team was already undermanned > > before Ubuntu existed. d-i was short on contributers and had a hard time > > releasing before Ubuntu existed. > > That's very Ubuntu-centric. What about the others ? I'm not > specifically speaking of Ubuntu here. You can add Project Scud to the > list, if you'd like.
Got a more specific example or are you just going to keep throwing conspiracy theories around? > > We have only ourselves to blame for where we're at now. > > At least back then we weren't trying to reduce the set of > architectures we support to match theirs. This isn't about matching with Debian-derivatives. This is about the load placed on the people doing the actual work. Are you paying attention to what the Release Managers, D-I Lead, and FTP Masters are saying? Or are you just assuming that they're out to get you? > And keeping IA64 in the loop is just another joke from the release > team. It'd be interesting to find out, but I bet more m68ks were sold > than IA64 last year. Oh no! Objective criteria! Whatever shall we do? - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]