Steve Langasek writes (Bug#741573: Two menu systems):
...
- What *I* want is for the TC to take a principled stand on the point that
the policy manual exists to describe distribution-wide integration
policies, instead of taking a there's more than one way to do it easy
way out.
Stuart Prescott writes (Bug#741573: Two menu systems):
Ian Jackson wrote:
I think you are perfectly entitled to let the people who care about
the Debian menu take care of that testing.
As others have pointed out, that's a level a lot lower in everyone's
current understanding of what
Steve == Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Steve On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 01:27:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Thanks for bringing this issue back to the question that was
brought to the TC.
The discussion so far on this bug has focused on discussing what
the right
Sam Hartman writes (Bug#741573: Two menu systems):
If, as Russ claimed, a consensus was reached in a properly conducted
policy process, then I strongly disagree with the approach the TC is
taking. I think it creates significant harm for the project as a whole
when the TC does not generally
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 21:04:12 Ian Jackson wrote:
Stuart Prescott writes (Bug#741573: Two menu systems):
Ian Jackson wrote:
I think you are perfectly entitled to let the people who care about
the Debian menu take care of that testing.
As others have pointed out, that's a level a lot
Ian == Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
So, if you've reviewed this enough to support Bill's claim that
there isn't a consensus because there are substantial objections
raised in the discussions and not addressed, then please say
that. If you have not
On Friday 11 April 2014 15:23:06 Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
The upshot is that we don't currently insist that maintainers provide
manpages. I have never been criticised by anyone for uploading or
sponsoring anything with missing manpages. I don't think anyone else
should be criticised for
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes (Bug#741573: Two menu systems):
Then we have a double standard here. For some cases we (as in the
project) consider should as Stuart and I described it before, but
we do *also* consider it a may for some cases, as Ian has just
pointed it out.
Can you
On Friday 11 April 2014 16:10:01 you wrote:
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes (Bug#741573: Two menu systems):
Then we have a double standard here. For some cases we (as in the
project) consider should as Stuart and I described it before, but
we do *also* consider it a may for some
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes (Bug#741573: Two menu systems):
On Friday 11 April 2014 16:10:01 you wrote:
Can you come up with any examples where should is used in a way that
_does not_ permit a maintainer to disregard it if it appears to be a
more work than they care to put in
On Friday 11 April 2014 18:25:01 you wrote:
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes (Bug#741573: Two menu systems):
On Friday 11 April 2014 16:10:01 you wrote:
Can you come up with any examples where should is used in a way that
_does not_ permit a maintainer to disregard it if it
So, to take a step back, I think Ian is arguing that, by declaring the
traditional menu system a should, he's not introducing a problem into
Policy that doesn't already exist, because our current use of should is
all over the map.
I agree with that statement as far as it goes, but I don't think
12 matches
Mail list logo
