On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 10:51:23AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > > On 7/17/05, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As we only support upgrades to the next release and not any other its > > > very clear to remove them from the archive. > > > Does 'not supporting' equal 'requiring it to fail'? > > It equals "we have no expectation whatsoever that upgrades from woody to > etch will work for *anyone*, so users are much better off if we deliver this > message to them consistently instead of hinting with a couple of remaining > transition packages here and there that it might work". We know from > experience with sarge that we're already spread very thin where upgrade > support is concerned, so it's important that we neither overpromise nor let > ourselves be distracted by things that won't actually be of benefit to > users. > > In this context, woody->sarge transition packages are just one form of > useless cruft that we should strive to get rid of before the etch release. > They're not the biggest source of cruft, but on the other hand they are > (IMHO) one of the sources for which the proper course of action is clearest.
In such case, could we please codify that in policy? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]