Joerg Jaspert <[email protected]> writes: > Besides being a bug in the GR to formulate way too much how the > implementation goes, looking at the actual text of what we voted on, it > always says "the initial policy is ...". That point had been discussed > in various places and the usual outcome was "Yeah, can change it due to > that". As long as the functionality is given, which is. Technically > even better than before.
...okay, I'm embarassed now. How the heck did I miss that qualification? It would help if I actually read the GRs that I was complaining about and paid attention. > Or is (my|our) reading here that wrong? I was definitely reading it wrong. That certainly resolves all of my (unimportant) concern. Sorry about the noise! -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
