On March 17, 2019 11:13:31 PM GMT+01:00, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
[2019-03-17 19:07:23 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
This is a follow-up on the last month discussion about a “minimal
Creating a new thread removed from the discussion we had a month ago just makes it so much harder for all of us to remember what everyone's arguments and counter-arguments were. Please do not do this. For my part, I thought we had reached consensus with Allan's message:
Summary: You propose what you want your new group to be (metapackage, list of dependencies, etc.) and we adopt this as the new base.
If that is not satisfactory to you, please reply to that specific message and say why. That would have been far more constructive than your present message which rehashes some of the discussion we've already had and adds new questions I have no idea where you're going with.
I thought so too, also don't really see why we need a different set than the one already proposed but curious to hear. I just didn't went any further yet to give more time for people to potentially talk about something not yet mentioned. I don't quite see why we are facing something very time critical here so it's fine to wait a bit and give people enough room to feel comfortable with this whole change.