On 10/25/2012 12:15 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
No, it makes the process based on *consensus*, which is a minimum
requirement.
How many people should send ACKs in this system?
- If it's a lot of people, then it's hard to hunt for so many.
- If it's not a lot of people, then it hardly can be
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 14:59:09 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
So, what will you do if:
- previous maintainer goes MIA
- Somebody wants to hija^W salvage the package and starts the procedure
- Nobody votes for this to happen...
They should use the already existing MIA process instead...
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmaintained
package (since then, all other packages of this maintainer
have been orphaned...). It (unwillingly) created a
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Silence is not assent. That thread blew up because you proposed a *broken*
No, silence is an indication that you don't deserve any decision-making
power.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Le Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:46:08PM +, Clint Adams a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Silence is not assent. That thread blew up because you proposed a *broken*
No, silence is an indication that you don't deserve any decision-making
power.
Hi all,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 08:38:19AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:46:08PM +, Clint Adams a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Silence is not assent. That thread blew up because you proposed a
*broken*
No, silence is an
Hi,
Here is an attempt at summarizing building a proposal out of the
Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal
thread that was started at [1].
The following aims at being written in a form suitable for inclusion in
developers-reference.
Hi,
thanks for the proposal. It looks good, generally speaking and being in
consent with the previous discussion we had. Some minor tweaks:
On 23.10.2012 11:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
1. Someone opens an ITO (Intent to Orphan) bug against the package whose
orphaning is suggested, with the
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The following aims at being written in a form suitable for inclusion in
developers-reference.
Thanks for this summary ... and patch then!
The NMU procedure (described in developers-reference section 5.11)
enables other
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
Here is an attempt at summarizing building a proposal out of the
Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal
thread that was started at [1].
The following aims at being written in a form
On 2012-10-23, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Hi,
Here is an attempt at summarizing building a proposal out of the
Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal
thread that was started at [1].
Some years ago, people used a much simpler process. Why
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 05:19:37 PM Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2012-10-23, Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Hi,
Here is an attempt at summarizing building a proposal out of the
Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal
thread that was
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by
retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly.
I fear a bit the situation nobody care enough to comment, being
interpreted as lack of consensus.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:19:37PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
1) report a bug 'should this package be orphaned?' against the package
with a more or less defalut templated text and a serious severity
2) sleep 4*7*24*3600
3) if bug silent, orphan it (and maybe adopt it)
According to the
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:19:37PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
1) report a bug 'should this package be orphaned?' against the
package
with a more or less defalut templated text and a serious severity
2) sleep 4*7*24*3600
3) if bug silent, orphan it
Le Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
The following aims at being written in a form suitable for inclusion in
developers-reference.
Hi Lucas,
first of all, thank you for the summary. At the end, the final text may not
please everybody, but my feeling is that
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by
retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly.
I fear a bit the situation
101 - 117 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
