Hi Drew; --- Mar 29/5/12, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> ha scritto:
<snip> > > >> >> >> >> Yes the situation was specifically postponed as a graduation >> >> issue, I am not going through that discussion again. >> >> >> >> I made a concrete proposal with two alternatives: >> >> >> >> - They are moved to a friendly ftp/http site. >> >> - I step down from the PPMC to avoid the community >> >> the pain of a -1 vote. >> > ... > > Could be - it was just the way Pedro phrased his comment I > thought perhaps his thinking was being influenced by the > earlier remarks. > The idea that we have remaining issues with Category-B tarballs in the tree has been around since before the release, and one of our mentors (Ross I recall) did acknowledge my point of view. I did offer to step down then but I don't mean to make a big issue out of this. If I step down it will be communicated in the private list exclusively. I would still be a committer and nothing would really change for me. What I feel is disappointing is the lack of acknowledgement that there *is* an issue. Category-B software can be included in releases in binary form but it should be otherwise actively discouraged, and in general unsupported: it should not be included in the buildbots and using it should be, in general terms, a PITA. IMHO this project benefited greatly from the Category-X replacement and in general I would like the project to head in a direction that will lead to greater license and code simplification but the current situation where we work-around the policy issues instead of solving them is (again IMO) unacceptable. Pedro.
