Re: bug-grub

[Gregg Levine]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Robert Millan <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Marco and I had an interesting discussion about bug-grub today:
>
> 15:54 < marco_g> nyu: Actually, I rarely look at the BTS
> 15:54 < marco_g> The list is a better way to process patches, IMO.
> 15:55 < nyu> marco_g: bug-grub is rotting
> 15:55 < nyu> we should really consider a list merge
> 15:55 < marco_g> nyu: What do you mean?
> 15:55 < nyu> either that, or get rid of the BTS and bug-grub
> 15:55 < marco_g> nyu: I do not oppose to the latter ;-)
> 15:55 < nyu> marco_g: a BTS *is* useful
> 15:56 < marco_g> nyu: I do not see any email when people post bugs for GRUB 
> 2, is there a way to subscribe?
> 15:56 < marco_g> That would make it more useful to me...
> 15:57 < nyu> marco_g: they go to bug-grub
> 15:57 < marco_g> Oh, I don't read bug-grub
> 15:57 < marco_g> It's for GRUB Legacy as I see it.
> 15:59 < nyu> marco_g: then let's dislodge GRUB Legacy from it
> 16:00 < marco_g> nyu: Good idea, please propose it ;-)
>
> So this is my lazy way of I'm proposing that :-)
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> --
> Robert Millan

Hello!
Why I am inclined to think is that the Bug-Grub list should be allowed
to continue for as long as there are available binary blobs and source
code ones for the original Grub-Legacy. Currently that one is in a
finally released state, as Grub2 hastens towards its first actual
release.

An appropriate disclaimer of what list does what should be posted onto
the basic website.
-----
Gregg C Levine address@hidden
"This signature was once found posting rude
 messages in English in the Moscow subway."