Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:08:19PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: [...] >> I did, however, state that I felt that 4.3.0-1 was by far the superior >> base to work from in sid, for a number of reasons (not least that >> propagation to sarge would put the XSF in the position of having to >> maintain two codebases, not three).
> Why do you presume to speak for the entire XSF here? Maintaining more > codebases is potentially *good*, not bad. Hello, Can you elaborate on that? Simple minded as I am I fail to see the benefits of maintaining 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 at the same time (i.e. tracking bug-reports, fixing serious ones possibly thrice) has, it just looks like more work. > A lot of users are interested in a backport of 4.3.0 to woody; > Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker volunteered to maintain it, but didn't have > time. Within the past week or so, Norbert Tretkowski and I spoke on > IRC, and he'd like to take up that responsibility. [...] I fail to see how a 4.3.0 backport is connected to keeping on maintaining 4.2 for sid. - I actually wanted to snip this paragraph but wanted to sidestep a "see the part you did not quote" answer. ;-) tia, cu andreas