Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

2015-02-21 Thread Riley Baird
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 08:19:34 +0800
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
 
  Kind of, but it's only for that one article. Is there something similar
  that lists all edits to the wiki itself like that? If not, I could make
  one by downloading the revision histories for all pages on the wiki and
  then parsing them, but this might place strain on the server (and would
  be much more difficult).
 
 Isn't #388141 solely about the website?
 
 There is #385797 about the wiki content.

Good point. I really should have noticed that.

In any case, as ridiculous as it sounds, I've been trying to get CVS to show me 
the offending commits over the last couple of days, and I haven't worked out 
how to do it. So, I think that I'll leave this bug (at least for now), and go 
work on some other Debian-related activity. Thanks for your help everyone.




pgpW5PigcIgKN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

2015-02-17 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Riley Baird wrote:

 Kind of, but it's only for that one article. Is there something similar
 that lists all edits to the wiki itself like that? If not, I could make
 one by downloading the revision histories for all pages on the wiki and
 then parsing them, but this might place strain on the server (and would
 be much more difficult).

Isn't #388141 solely about the website?

There is #385797 about the wiki content.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6H=bibz7u9poykj6_pe2cd358fwbuvstiqejmemxsz...@mail.gmail.com



Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

2015-02-17 Thread Riley Baird
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:30:44 +0100
Tomas Pospisek t...@sourcepole.ch wrote:
 Am 13.02.2015 um 21:15 schrieb Riley Baird:
  On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:16:39 +0100
  Tomas Pospisek t...@sourcepole.ch wrote:
  Am 12.02.2015 um 20:59 schrieb Riley Baird:
 
  Bug #388141 [RC] refers to the relicensing of the debian www pages.
  After contacting debian-www, it seems that there isn't much interest in
  fixing it.
 
  I interpret the relative silence in #388141 differently then you. I'd
  say that everybody is busy with doing other stuff. So if you want the
  state of affairs to change, just go after it, bit by bit. As you
  describe here:
 
  The next step would involve compiling a list of website
  lines which are still active yet which relicensing permission has not
  been received.
 
  And then just ask for permission, line by line.
  
  Surprisingly not! Everyone who has been contacted has already been 
  contacted. The reason for collecting these lines is that we need to 
  determine whether the lines in question are copyrightable, and whether they 
  are still in use.
  
  In the end I think it's work and if it should be accomplished then
  someone has to do that work. Since you are interested, just go and hit
  the work, it may well be that people will join or help you along the way.
  
  I've always been happy to do the work, but I thought that access to the 
  wiki databases was necessary to compile such a list. Or is it possible to 
  compile such a list with just a user account on the wiki?
 
 I'm not sure I really understand what you want to do.
 
 Is something like this:
 
   https://wiki.debian.org/LXC?action=info
 
 not what you need?

Kind of, but it's only for that one article. Is there something similar
that lists all edits to the wiki itself like that? If not, I could make
one by downloading the revision histories for all pages on the wiki and
then parsing them, but this might place strain on the server (and would
be much more difficult).


pgpUlZQPEt4Z5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

2015-02-16 Thread Tomas Pospisek
Am 13.02.2015 um 21:15 schrieb Riley Baird:
 On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:16:39 +0100
 Tomas Pospisek t...@sourcepole.ch wrote:
 Am 12.02.2015 um 20:59 schrieb Riley Baird:

 Bug #388141 [RC] refers to the relicensing of the debian www pages.
 After contacting debian-www, it seems that there isn't much interest in
 fixing it.

 I interpret the relative silence in #388141 differently then you. I'd
 say that everybody is busy with doing other stuff. So if you want the
 state of affairs to change, just go after it, bit by bit. As you
 describe here:

 The next step would involve compiling a list of website
 lines which are still active yet which relicensing permission has not
 been received.

 And then just ask for permission, line by line.
 
 Surprisingly not! Everyone who has been contacted has already been contacted. 
 The reason for collecting these lines is that we need to determine whether 
 the lines in question are copyrightable, and whether they are still in use.
 
 In the end I think it's work and if it should be accomplished then
 someone has to do that work. Since you are interested, just go and hit
 the work, it may well be that people will join or help you along the way.
 
 I've always been happy to do the work, but I thought that access to the wiki 
 databases was necessary to compile such a list. Or is it possible to compile 
 such a list with just a user account on the wiki?

I'm not sure I really understand what you want to do.

Is something like this:

  https://wiki.debian.org/LXC?action=info

not what you need?
*t


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54e22944.2030...@sourcepole.ch



Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

2015-02-13 Thread Adam D. Barratt

On 2015-02-12 19:59, Riley Baird wrote:

In any case, even if there is interest in closing this bug, it is
definitely more of a long-term thing and is unlikely to be fixed before
the jessie release. Because of this, would it be okay to mark it as
jessie-ignore?


For reference, as per https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags , 
setting -ignore tags is the purview of the Release Team, not maintainers 
or debian-devel. Feel free to suggest such things, but please don't add 
or remove any -ignore tags.


Thanks,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/2b869354c1753b4c7b41345a0aee7...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org



Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

2015-02-13 Thread Riley Baird
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:16:39 +0100
Tomas Pospisek t...@sourcepole.ch wrote:
 Am 12.02.2015 um 20:59 schrieb Riley Baird:
 
  Bug #388141 [RC] refers to the relicensing of the debian www pages.
  After contacting debian-www, it seems that there isn't much interest in
  fixing it.
 
 I interpret the relative silence in #388141 differently then you. I'd
 say that everybody is busy with doing other stuff. So if you want the
 state of affairs to change, just go after it, bit by bit. As you
 describe here:
 
  The next step would involve compiling a list of website
  lines which are still active yet which relicensing permission has not
  been received.
 
 And then just ask for permission, line by line.

Surprisingly not! Everyone who has been contacted has already been contacted. 
The reason for collecting these lines is that we need to determine whether the 
lines in question are copyrightable, and whether they are still in use.

 In the end I think it's work and if it should be accomplished then
 someone has to do that work. Since you are interested, just go and hit
 the work, it may well be that people will join or help you along the way.

I've always been happy to do the work, but I thought that access to the wiki 
databases was necessary to compile such a list. Or is it possible to compile 
such a list with just a user account on the wiki?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20150214071524.fd5a9f473b50c52df74f6...@bitmessage.ch



Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

2015-02-13 Thread Riley Baird
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:40:53 +
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
 On 2015-02-12 19:59, Riley Baird wrote:
  In any case, even if there is interest in closing this bug, it is
  definitely more of a long-term thing and is unlikely to be fixed before
  the jessie release. Because of this, would it be okay to mark it as
  jessie-ignore?
 
 For reference, as per https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags , 
 setting -ignore tags is the purview of the Release Team, not maintainers 
 or debian-devel. Feel free to suggest such things, but please don't add 
 or remove any -ignore tags.

I won't. Thanks for letting me know.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20150214070436.759e1add961d8bbd3ea14...@bitmessage.ch



Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

2015-02-13 Thread Riley Baird
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:47:53 -0800
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
 On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Riley Baird wrote:
  In any case, even if there is interest in closing this bug, it is
  definitely more of a long-term thing and is unlikely to be fixed before
  the jessie release. Because of this, would it be okay to mark it as
  jessie-ignore?
 
 There's no point in marking bugs in psuedo packages jessie-ignore;
 they're ignored for the purpose of releasing jessie anyway.

Ah, I didn't know that.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20150214070548.770a5313f62ed50c2caa5...@bitmessage.ch



Re: Should we mark #388141 as jessie-ignore?

2015-02-12 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Riley Baird wrote:
 In any case, even if there is interest in closing this bug, it is
 definitely more of a long-term thing and is unlikely to be fixed before
 the jessie release. Because of this, would it be okay to mark it as
 jessie-ignore?

There's no point in marking bugs in psuedo packages jessie-ignore;
they're ignored for the purpose of releasing jessie anyway.

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

He wore trifocals. There was stratigraphy even in his glasses.
 -- John McPhee _Annals of the Former World_ p364


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150212224753.gz27...@teltox.donarmstrong.com