Zac Medico wrote: > On 04/22/2012 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On 04/22/2012 05:28 AM, Steven J Long wrote: >>> From the first reply: >>> >>> "To clarify, the question is whether or not we support a separate /usr >>> _without_ mounting it early via an initramfs." >>> >>> I hope that settles that particular issue. >>> >> >> Hmm... I see that in Zac's reply, thanks for that. >> >> Unfortunately, from what I can tell, that clarification was not actually >> part of the proposed agenda [5], nor was it directly referenced. So the >> subject of the vote still seems open to interpretation. > > Yeah, it almost seems as though the council was being intentionally > vague and leaving things open to interpretation.
Wow, man, never thought I'd see *you* weasel out of something like that ;) > In response, we had > William post about the ">= udev-182 tracker" [1], to which Tony seemed > to respond positively [2]. > That was about process to do with stabilisation. Of course having a tracker to monitor any issues is a positive step. It doesn't say anything at all about what the base requirement was, nor what was up for discussion at the meeting. You yourself clarified that it was about no initramfs as soon as it was raised to Council: that was the only thing that could cause a technical issue, specifically to users who have setup according to official documentation, requiring a policy decision. And that's what all the discussion was about: the consequence of making that policy decision (ie who would maintain patches, which are no longer needed.) Still, this got silly weeks ago. Clearly Council needs to vote again with clear wording, or people will keep trying to pretend that they weren't discussing what they were asked to discuss. Regards, Steve. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
