On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 11 août 2011 à 20:31 +0200, Michael Biebl a écrit : > > > The alternative is to backport the necessary changes in g-s-d (which > > > sounds insane) or to re-add the necessary support in nautilus (which is > > > far from trivial). > > > > I'd rather just have automount support broken temporarily, tbh. > > I don’t think there is any point in testing if we break such basic > functionality for a long period of time. But that’s for the RT to decide > anyway.
+1 That's not the kind of brokenness that we want in testing. It's nice to be able to split transitions, but when it's not possible our infrastructure should cope with large transitions. With everything more or less working in experimental, what exactly do you fear? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gtk-gnome-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110815202604.gk8...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
