My resignation

Nick Fotopoulos weasel at
Tue Jul 13 17:14:31 PDT 2004

On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 20:01 -0400, Nick Fotopoulos wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 20:24 +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:42:09 -0400
> > Nick Fotopoulos <weasel at> wrote:
> > 
> > > Were there any good arguments made against 2 stable releases that I
> > > missed?
> > 
> > Aside from the usual "available resources" argument, no I don't think
> > so.  If someone wants to take this on then feel free.  I for one though
> > will have neither the time nor the motivation to contribute to a
> > continued 5.x branch.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Matt
> The 5.x branch really doesn't need much work.  The occational package
> update, and maybe replacement if a package falls out of favor.  Actually
> now that I think of it, thats how it is now.  With the exception that
> some people in the community don't like the new direction.  The 5.x book
> isn't going anywhere no matter what direction the book takes.  Its a
> stable release, and will likely be around for a loooong time.  With that
> said, what is the problem with 6.x taking a new direction?  If you don't
> like the new direction, there is the 5.x book.  If you don't like the
> current 5.x book and want to see changes made to it, just not the
> extreme ones that are in 6.x then become a 5.x maintainer.

Ack! How illiterate did that sound?  O_o

> Matt:  This obviously wasn't directed at you, just happened to think of
> it when replying to your message.  "You" is intended to mean the
> of the community
> don't want the 
bleeding edge
> stuff like udev, and hotplug.
> -- 
> Nick Fotopoulos
> "Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."
Nick Fotopoulos

"Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list