On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 21:48 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
IMHO we really should have a global NMU blacklist (no, never per-package.
That way lies lameness) which we could ask the ctte to place maintainers in
for a few months when someone does the NMU-and-forget routine and that NMU
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote:
You sure do have a point here. But that seems to apply to both DD's and
It would appply to those who can upload (i.e. DDs right now).
non-DD's. I still don't see why a sponsored NMU would be bad.
It is not that sponsored NMUs are bad, it is that they
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:03:43AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote:
You sure do have a point here. But that seems to apply to both DD's and
It would appply to those who can upload (i.e. DDs right now).
non-DD's. I still don't see why a
Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm aware that person C is mentioned in the changelog of the package,
and not person D. I don't see a problem with that. Note that person B
can be a non-DD too, so there we have non-DD's in changelogs too.
When I'm person D, I usually ask person C to
Hi all!
This email is motivated by an effective current issue, as detailed below, but
I'm seeing myself in similar situations quite often.
There is a package, which isn't officially orphaned, but the maintainer is
neither responding to bug reports nor to mails to her @d.o address. Even though
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 07:49:22PM +0200, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
Hi all!
This email is motivated by an effective current issue, as detailed below, but
I'm seeing myself in similar situations quite often.
There is a package, which isn't officially orphaned, but the maintainer is
neither
Michael Tautschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is a Serious bug, and is a FTBFS, so AIUI, it is RC. So it can be filex
in a NMU. However, According the the Developer's reference, only DD's can
NMU. If that is true, then sponsored NMU are not allowed.
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Michael Tautschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is a Serious bug, and is a FTBFS, so AIUI, it is RC. So it can be
filex in a NMU. However, According the the Developer's reference, only DD's
can
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:37:56PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
That is a Serious bug, and is a FTBFS, so AIUI, it is RC. So it can be
filex in a NMU. However, According the the Developer's reference, only DD's
can NMU. If that is true, then sponsored NMU are not allowed. However,
tradition
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit* developers from
sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a sponsored NMU is a broken
one, because responsibility for the NMU lies with the uploader, not with the
Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit* developers from
sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a sponsored NMU is a broken
one, because responsibility for the NMU lies with the
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit*
developers from sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a
sponsored NMU is a broken one, because responsibility for the
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:04:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:03:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are no technical measures in place which *prohibit*
developers from sponsoring NMUs. Nevertheless, the concept of a
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
The difference being that most of the time when someone sponsors an NMU,
they're effectively shirking their own duty to follow up on the package and
ensure that the NMU hasn't introduced any regressions. Often, they're
shirking their duty to even
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 09:48:06PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
IMHO we really should have a global NMU blacklist (no, never per-package.
That way lies lameness) which we could ask the ctte to place maintainers in
for a few months when someone does the NMU-and-forget routine and
15 matches
Mail list logo
