Am Dienstag, den 12.02.2008, 09:28 -0500 schrieb Luis Villa: > On Feb 12, 2008 9:24 AM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:13:45PM +0200, Lucas Rocha wrote: > > > I agree. We shouldn'd discard the possibility of either postponing the > > > gvfs-based Nautilus or delaying the .0 release if needed. Obviously, > > > releasing Nautilus with too many or some big regressions is not a good > > > plan. > > > > More for release-team to decide, not d-d-l. Devs should code. > > Bzzt. Also wrong answer. r-t's role is in large part to reflect the > will of devs, so devs should definitely be discussing how to > prioritize and deal with this problem. if devs are aware of the problem and are informed about the current state (they are now, i think) this might be possible, and this is what this thread is also about. however someone (r-t) has to make the decision. ideally the r-t just summarizes and acts according to threads on d-d-l. however (i second olav here) huge threads on d-d-l are often quite useless and lead to no consensus. if some more people come up (i don't care if it's volunteers or if a distro decides on what they work) working on the missing bits, the remaining important issues can be definitely fixed in time (means: four weeks). that's what showstopper reports and some rants in blog entries are definitely good for. andre -- mailto:ak-47 gmx net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil