[ M-F-T to -devel ]
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 06:00:09PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Another thread, another thread summary! Here is a summary about where we
> are on this discussion, at least as far as I can tell.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
> I would love if we can summarize the above part by
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 06:00:09PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Bcc:-ing release team ]
Why Bcc?!
[...]
> I would love if we can summarize the above part by saying that we have
> consensus on: 1) announcing at the beginning of a release cycle a target
> freeze month, 2) refining it later
e was another press announcement [1] and as far as
>> I've seen the media used indeed sometimes wrong titles, but the
>> focus if not all of their message was around time based freezes
>> and not so much about any particular date.
>
> Hm, strange. I cannot recall the art
27;ve seen the media used indeed sometimes wrong titles, but the
> focus if not all of their message was around time based freezes
> and not so much about any particular date.
Hm, strange. I cannot recall the article(s) that made me write my
initial message. It definitely seemed like this a
just want a baseline on which to formulate a new
> press statement.
>
>> What are the reasons you want an updated statement? The media
>> coverage on the time based freezes does not seem wrong to me or am
>> I missing something?
>
> You mean apart from the media that miss
w
press statement.
> What are the reasons you want an updated statement? The media
> coverage on the time based freezes does not seem wrong to me or am
> I missing something?
You mean apart from the media that missed the "freeze" part of the
regularity and think that Debia
statement? Will there be
>> regular freezes from now on? What period? I think we should issue
>> a press release about this.
>
> Any reaction to this?
This seems like an invitation to get whatever statement to attack.
What are the reasons you want an updated statement? The media
also sprach martin f krafft [2009.10.26.1054 +0100]:
> As far as I can tell, the press release during DebConf9[0] is still
> taken to be the official position of the Debian project, at least if
> I scan the pertinent media sources.
>
> Luk's e-mail updates have not overly embraced the original pr
Dear release team members,
As far as I can tell, the press release during DebConf9[0] is still
taken to be the official position of the Debian project, at least if
I scan the pertinent media sources.
Luk's e-mail updates have not overly embraced the original proposal,
but the media does not read
9 matches
Mail list logo
