>>>>> "David" == David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> s/not\s+//; David> I appreciate the good-natured jibe. I didn't think the analogy David> to the Debian release process was so far-fetched, but it David> appears that it is. I'll admit to being one (of many, probably) who read the first sentence of your original post and decided that "this post *is* off-topic", having mysteriously landed here after being misdirected from an epidemiology list. David> I never understood people who claim that to relase Woody for David> mainstream architectures (essentially i386 and PPC) before David> releasing it for non-mainstream architectures would make the David> non-mainstream architectures "second class citizens." has it really been demonstrated that HPPA (the designated whipping boy, judging from other posts I've read) significantly holds up releases? I personally wouldn't know, not being at all involved in the process. David> I was hoping someone who takes this position would either David> explain why my ananlogy fails or explain why we really should David> spend on all 11 diseases equally, even though this does not David> help the most people that we can. it fails because it appears to be based on a false premise: that port specific bugs are significantly holding up the release process. then again, whenever someone starts moaning about the outdatedness of debian, someone usually counters with "Don't you know that Debian has to support X platforms? That's not easy!" it seems common-sensical that supporting more platforms is going to be harder than supporting fewer platforms. if it could be shown that the increasing number of ports has made Debian *overall* less useful to people, then your analogy would make more sense. -- joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]