You are correct its not my process, but I am still curious as to the
rationale which is just a question that was not answered. Nowhere did I
suggest, or imply, that it should be changed.
And how do you define crappier releases? If something is stable enough
that the development team decide to mark a release that is up to them,
not you which is similar to what you noted about this being *your*
process, that is *theirs*.
Edward Lopez-Acosta
On 4/5/19 7:08 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Could you please explain the logic behind this as I am confused. Is this
>> due to an inefficient process, technical limitation, or other reason
>> (lack of manpower doesn't qualify as that seems self inflicted by the
>> project)? Are you somehow tracking submissions to take care of when this
>> unlocked so people don't waste their time needing to resubmit them?
>
> Our process. *OUR* process. This is not your process. Meaning it
> isn't your decision.
>
>> While they may exist I know of no other project, including OS, that halt
>> development like this for long, if at all, to do a release. Again, they
>> may exist I just don't know of any and find the process awkward and
>> confusing.
>
> Other projects split their developers between "making the release" and
> "working on the future", and as a result they take a long time to make
> crappier releases.
>
> That's their choice.
>
> It is not our choice.
>
> It is *NOT YOUR CHOICE*, and you don't have standing to comment.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment