On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 04:09:59PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 10:03:26PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> ...
> > > Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > > The requisite discussion
Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 10:03:26PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
...
> > Craig Sanders wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 10:32:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > The requisite discussion period having been entertained, ...
> > >
> > > your CFV is unconstitutiona
Chris Pimlott wrote:
> Basically I only see this as making life more difficult by having
> packages jump between different groups when their releasing patterns
> change and having criterions to decide when a package has officially
> changed from fast to slow. This makes both hassle for main
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 10:03:26PM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> About Craig's increasingly insulting and offensive protest about the
> constitutionality of this CFV, to wit:
the only person i have been insulting to is the moron who deserves it.
cretins should learn to shut their mouth and stop anno
Dividing packages by release schedule is not a great idea. Many
packages don't fall neatly into release schedule categories. A normally
"slow" release package may have many releases as it builds to a new major
version or experiences rapid bug fixes cause by a major overhaul, or a
normall
5 matches
Mail list logo
