n
only be extending this backwards from the end, to cover the preceding 24
hours.
If I've got that right, then perhaps something like "Minor changes to
ballot options under point A.1.5 may only be made until the point 24
hours before the end of the discussion period, unless" might
t I'm barely even a contributor, certainly not a DD, so my
voice here has significantly less relevance than might be ideal for
participation in such a discussion.)
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
o convey his perspective on the issue to
other potential voters, and thus to potentially affect how those others
may choose to vote when the time to do so comes.
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. There
be
less likely to help than to make the situation worse). Unfortunately, as
far as I can tell, that doesn't seem to have ever happened. This GR
seems to be nearly as close as we've come, and it's still a layer or two
of implicitness away from actually making it explicit.
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
x27;s part here, I think Ian was trying to describe what he
> thought was the likely outcome, and not specifically threaten to
> behave in a particular way.
Thank you. I've been trying to think of a way to clearly express that
for some time now, ever since people first started to indic
(Responding quickly to only the part I think I can address well on short
notice, without needing to spend a long time thinking it over.)
On 11/02/2014 at 07:58 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>> systemd-shim 8.2 and 7.1 do not list a dependency on systemd, or
>> a
On 10/28/2014 at 12:20 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>
>> What I'm thinking of is cases where upstream has decided to depend
>> on functionality that is provided by one init system but not by
>> others, without graceful runtime fallback - compile
54 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>
>> Just as a note, one difference here is that there is support in
>> the archive and package-distribution mechanisms for having multiple
>> versions of a package for different architectures or (I think?)
>> kerne
package
versions for different init systems, much as we already have for
different architectures and in some cases kernels. However, I'm not at
all sure that it's clear that the benefit of having such would be worth
the trouble of setting it up and maintaining it.
--
The Wanderer
The rea
st mildly controversial as well, although
probably much less so than either systemd has been or this GR is proving
to be.
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the un
10 matches
Mail list logo
