[long] Canonical are you serious?

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:43:24AM +0200, Sean Wheller wrote:

> On Monday 24 January 2005 08:35, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > What he is saying is that updating to a version of Subversion newer than
> > what is available in Warty involves duplicating the effort of applying
> > security fixes on an ongoing basis, which is absolutely accurate.
> 
> So we put support effort above contributors ability to execute?

We have limited resources, and we allocate them for maximum benefit.
If Subversion 1.1.2 is truly the difference between you being able to do
your work, and not, we can probably find a way to do it, but my impression
is that it is a "nice to have", which would allow you to use some of its new
features.

> > As discussed with Enrico on IRC, I have agreed to be a liaison between
> > Canonical and various Ubuntu teams.  I don't intend for this to be a "hope
> > and pray" relationship.
> 
> OK, then let's hear some conclusive decisions and schedules on the list.

The best way for this to work is for you to communicate and decide your
needs with Enrico, so that he can communicate with Canonical as a single
voice.

> > Again, I am available as a point of contact on Canonical-related issues.  I
> > can't promise to monitor every message on ubuntu-doc, but if you address me
> > personally, I will generally respond.
> 
> Great. So can we have decision on the following by today:
> 1. SVN or Bazaar?
> 2. When can either of the above be implimented?

#1 is up to you guys: whatever will enable you to work most effectively.
I will chase down #2 once #1 is decided.

-- 
 - mdz