Formal Complaint about off-list development discussions.

Jeroen Coumans jeroen at
Thu Jul 1 10:53:14 PDT 2004

Jeremy Utley said the following on 01-07-2004 19:38:
>>The problem is that testing is not a different branch. At a particular
>>point in time, the unstable will be branched into testing and all the
>>"undiscussed changes" that went into unstable will be part of testing.
>>This concern was also brought up during the heavy discussion on hotplug.
> What gives you this idea, Tushar?  Part of the REASON to move to
> subversion was to get away from exactly this need - the need to take the
> entire tree, as it is at a certain point, to make the branch to stable.

No, the move to Subversion was unrelated to this. But his point was that 
what is now unstable will be branched (ie. *copied*) to testing. This 
means that whatever is in unstable will go *undiscussed* into testing. 
And we agreed that changes which go into testing are required to have 
prior discussion on lfs-dev first.

> Personally, I'm tired of having to discuss things ad-nauseaum on list all
> the time.  The whole reason this project nearly died a few months back was
> the REQUIREMENT that things be discussed and a decision came to on list -
> the problem is, there was never any decision came to, so NOTHING could be
> done with the book.

Yes, and thus we created a difference between CVS and unstable. CVS is 
now referred to as testing and unstable was BE-LFS. You can do 
everything you want in unstable. But in order to get into a stable 
release (and thus in testing), a change has to be discussed first.

Your ability to do anything with the book is not hampered by this.

> And what's more, *IF* one of us decides to do something new, and hope to
> have that thing included in the book, it seems we're expected to ask the
> lists for permission before doing so, or at least that's what it seems to
> me.

No, only if you change something significant in testing.

Jeroen Coumans

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list