On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:01:12PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:38:56AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> > > > progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> > > > experimental
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:38:56AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> > > progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> > > experimental so a package can go into the archive (and have e.g. the BTS
> > > used for
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:05:14AM +0100, Alf Gaida wrote:
> On Sat 24 Nov 2018 at 04:29PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
>
> > The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> > progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> > experimental so a package can go into
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:16:59PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:42:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Because:
> > > > ...
> > > thanks! nice summary.
> > I replied in my other mail to the things I disagreed with (as is
> > traditional) but it occurred to me I ought
On Sat 24 Nov 2018 at 04:29PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> experimental so a package can go into the archive (and have e.g. the BTS
> used for that version) if the
Hello,
On Sat 24 Nov 2018 at 04:29PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> The experimental distribution is a good place for work in
> progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for
> experimental so a package can go into the archive (and have e.g. the BTS
> used for that version) if
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:52:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still think
> > > all of this should
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:42:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Because:
> > > ...
> > thanks! nice summary.
> I replied in my other mail to the things I disagreed with (as is
> traditional) but it occurred to me I ought to send a positive note
> about this:
>
> Thanks for being easy to
Chris Lamb writes ("Re: NEW and RC bugs (Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes
REJECTED)"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> >[..] Compared to REJECT mails:
> > - Discussions in the BTS are more transparent
> > - Discussions in the BTS are better organised
> &
Ian Jackson wrote:
>[..] Compared to REJECT mails:
>
> - Discussions in the BTS are more transparent
> - Discussions in the BTS are better organised
> - Discussions in the BTS can have wider participation
> - Discussions in the BTS are better archived
> - Discussions
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: NEW and RC bugs (Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes
REJECTED)"):
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:52:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Because:
> > ...
>
> thanks! nice summary.
I replied in my other mail to the things I disagreed with (as
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: NEW and RC bugs (Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes
REJECTED)"):
> still I think we should only stuff in unstable which is suited for
> testing. So while you have convinced me that it's good to have those
> packages in Debian I now think that experimen
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:52:48PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Because:
>
> * Discussions about the RC bugs can be more effectively dealt with
>using our existing discussion mechanisms, including primarily the
>Debian BTS. Compared to REJECT mails:
> - Discussions in the BTS are
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"):
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still think
> > all of this should be handled as bugs (possibly RC bugs) in the BTS
> > in the conventional
14 matches
Mail list logo
