On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:09:56PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:50:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
the TC is probably a much more suitable body to rule on this
I'd like to point out that if the DPL delegated that decision to
ftp-master, and ftp-master made a
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:34:25PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Thomas Goirand writes (FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack nova 2013.1
just right before the OpenStack summit):
I would like first the new DPL to express his view: is this the role of
the FTP masters to overrule the technical
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack nova
2013.1 just right before the OpenStack summit):
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:34:25PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
You should refer to the TC when it becomes clear that neither you nor
the ftpmasters are going to be
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [130416 12:47]:
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack
nova 2013.1 just right before the OpenStack summit):
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:34:25PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
You should refer to the TC when it
On 04/16/2013 03:58 AM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 13182 March 1977, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Note that the upstream changelog issue was quickly solved (and I agreed
with the FTP masters view on it), though remains the problem of having
too many binaries, according to the FTP masters.
Ay. I go
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 04/16/2013 03:58 AM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
And we do consider a bit more here. Each and every package takes extra
space in the various metadata places, like Packages (times number of
architectures), our database, our various handling scripts of
6 matches
Mail list logo
