Thiemo Seufer writes (Re: Bug#340428: octave2.9 - lists mailing list as
uploader in changelog):
Policy violations are RC by definition.
This is pernicious nonsense.
Asking whether a bug is release critical is the same as asking whether
it would be better to release with the bug, or to discard
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-26 00:43]:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:01:24AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 23:45]:
| Maintainer: Debian/IA64 Build Daemon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Changed-By: Debian Octave Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 10:53:16AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-26 00:43]:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:01:24AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 23:45]:
| Maintainer: Debian/IA64 Build Daemon
* Bastian Blank [Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:45:02 +0100]:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:48:39PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
Yes, I have been doing things wrongly in the past, but this is not the
case anymore. The Changed-By fields are correct now. See, for instance,
my last upload:
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 23:45]:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:48:39PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
Yes, I have been doing things wrongly in the past, but this is not the
case anymore. The Changed-By fields are correct now. See, for instance,
my last upload:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:36:41PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I can see arguments against it, but none that make
it an RC bug.
Policy violations are RC by definition.
Actually, no; policy violations are RC by *default*, but the definition of
what's release-critical for a release is set by
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:01:24AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 23:45]:
| Maintainer: Debian/IA64 Build Daemon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Changed-By: Debian Octave Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could you please explain to me why having Changed-By as a
[Please, Cc: to me, I am not currently subscribed to debian-devel.]
* Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 02:13]:
Stephen Gran wrote:
FWIW, Rafael, at first blush I have to say I agree with you. A
maintainer address in Debian is just a way to get in touch with someone
when
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
As regards the copy of this information into the Changed-By field of the
changes file, we are already requiring that the developers of the DOG
use the -e option of debuild (cf the DOG Guidelines, at
And the autobuilders get
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 10:21]:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
As regards the copy of this information into the Changed-By field of the
changes file, we are already requiring that the developers of the DOG
use the -e option of
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:21:27PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 10:21]:
And the autobuilders get this value from where? They use the common way
by looking into the changelog.
They get the correct entity, which is in the changelog (in the case
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
[Please, Cc: to me, I am not currently subscribed to debian-devel.]
* Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 02:13]:
Stephen Gran wrote:
FWIW, Rafael, at first blush I have to say I agree with you. A
maintainer address in Debian is just a way to get in
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
[Please, Cc: to me, I am not currently subscribed to debian-devel.]
* Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 02:13]:
Stephen Gran wrote:
FWIW, Rafael, at first blush I have to say I agree with you. A
Stephen Gran wrote:
[snip]
The maintainer name and email address used in the changelog should
be the details of the person uploading this version. They are not
necessarily those of the usual package maintainer.
[snip]
I think that are two distinct concepts here. The
Stephen Gran wrote:
[snip]
And we are in danger of allowing policy to drive practice, rather than
vice versa.
The problem is, there are many packages currently being group
maintained. These groups generally have some sort of group contact
email address:
grep-dctrl -n -s Maintainer ''
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Btw, about this simple-minded test:
299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and
nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the changelog
for whatever reason.
What is the difference betwen this:
Maintainer:
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Btw, about this simple-minded test:
299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and
nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the changelog
for whatever reason.
What is the difference
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:26:17PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Btw, about this simple-minded test:
299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and
nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the changelog
for
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Btw, about this simple-minded test:
299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and
nobody there felt compelled to put [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Btw, about this simple-minded test:
299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and
nobody there felt compelled to put
On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:03, Stephen Gran wrote:
But the .dsc is. This stuff is easily traceable, if we want to. I can
see the benefit of having the same name in the Maintainer field and in the
changelog for some. I can see arguments against it, but none that make
it an RC bug. We
On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I can see arguments against it, but none that make
it an RC bug.
Policy violations are RC by definition.
According to policy should's are not RC.
--
Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Isaac Clerencia wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:03, Stephen Gran wrote:
But the .dsc is. This stuff is easily traceable, if we want to. I can
see the benefit of having the same name in the Maintainer field and in the
changelog for some. I can see arguments against it, but none
Hi
First, what is DOG, I never heard about it.
In the debian/changelog for octave2.9 (and all other packages maintained
collectively by the Debian Octave Group, the DOG)
Start of Thread:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg01378.html
Second, I'm a member of the
* Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 21:42]:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:26:17PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Btw, about this simple-minded test:
299 of those are maintained by the Debian Install System Team, and
nobody there
Isaac Clerencia wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
I can see arguments against it, but none that make
it an RC bug.
Policy violations are RC by definition.
According to policy should's are not RC.
Policy 5.6.4 has no should.
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-24 15:51]:
First, what is DOG, I never heard about it.
The Debian Octave Group (http://pkg-octave.alioth.debian.org)
--
Rafael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 24 November 2005 22:54, Thomas Weber wrote:
Second, I'm a member of the debian-installer team. I never say
uploads with such entries.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2005/11/msg01337.html
Wrong example. The changelog for that version is:
base-installer (1.37)
This one time, at band camp, Thiemo Seufer said:
Isaac Clerencia wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2005 22:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Policy violations are RC by definition.
According to policy should's are not RC.
Policy 5.6.4 has no should.
It also has no must or could or might.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:48:39PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
Yes, I have been doing things wrongly in the past, but this is not the
case anymore. The Changed-By fields are correct now. See, for instance,
my last upload:
I am moving this discussion to debian-devel, since I am not sure we are
really violating the Policy. Feel free to move it further to
debian-policy, if you think it is appropriate.
* Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-23 13:18]:
Package: octave2.9
Version: 2.9.4-6
Severity: serious
This one time, at band camp, Rafael Laboissiere said:
I am moving this discussion to debian-devel, since I am not sure we
are really violating the Policy. Feel free to move it further to
debian-policy, if you think it is appropriate.
FWIW, Rafael, at first blush I have to say I agree with
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Rafael Laboissiere said:
I am moving this discussion to debian-devel, since I am not sure we
are really violating the Policy. Feel free to move it further to
debian-policy, if you think it is appropriate.
FWIW, Rafael, at first blush I
33 matches
Mail list logo
