On Tuesday 01 January 2013 16:46:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 01/01/2013 22:29, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote: > > That sounds like a clear win. If it has survived the tinderboxing there > > likely isn't much to hold you back. As non-contentious topics sometimes > > end up with no replies at all... consider 48 hours of radio silence an > > implicit yes. > > It didn't survive. I'm not sure if all the bugs have been fixed now but > at some point I had to stop the tinderboxing because it was hitting > package failures, and then it was "fixed for next version" — which was > difficult to test. > > So I would veto this _for the moment_. (I'd be happy to run another test > _after_ the glibc-2.17 one.)
yes, we need real data first before we can make a proper decision -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
