Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-12-10 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:52:08AM -0500, Karl Ramm wrote: And at this point, even though I'd *love* to turn xscreensaver maintenance over to someone I don't like, I still don't think I want you maintaining something I type my password into on a regular basis until you learn to play well with

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-12-10 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:40:47PM -0500, Karl Ramm wrote: -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] More insightful words have seldom been spoken on this mailing list. -- G. Branden Robinson|If

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-12-03 Thread Karl Ramm

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-12-02 Thread Karl Ramm
Ari Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had been taking the full brunt of the responsibility for the xscreensaver NMU, but since I was a pre-NM at the time and sponsors of uploads are supposed to follow Debian policy as well, he ended up taking most of the responsibility. This was a similar

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-12-02 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:54:02PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (I am sorry to say I don't know the proper protocol in Debian for this-- do I file a bug report on the package saying there's a new version?) This is something that is normally worked out on an individual basis between the

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-12-02 Thread Ari Pollak
And I'm sure everyone really appreciates that kind of arrogance. You've just exemplified the very reason why people aren't burning effigies of me at the moment. Last time I checked (unless I'm completely off here), users much preferred real progress over pretentious bureaucracy. I really don't

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-30 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Firstly, I don't think this is a matter for debian-devel as it doesn't involve the project as a whole and would best be dealt with privately. I usually consult debian-devel or other mailing lists before jumping on to do NMUs... well, sometimes :P Private mail do get lost, and there might be

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-30 Thread Andrew Lau
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 06:36:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 17:50, Ari Pollak wrote: Didn't you sponsor the upload? No, that was me... This Colin Colin confusion has been quite contagious this season, hasn't it? = P Yours sincerely, Andrew Netsnipe Lau --

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-30 Thread Colin Watson
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 09:31:46PM +1100, Andrew Lau wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 06:36:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 17:50, Ari Pollak wrote: Didn't you sponsor the upload? No, that was me... This Colin Colin confusion has been quite contagious this

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-30 Thread Sam Hartman
Ari == Ari Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC Ari has caused upset with NMUs before; xscreensaver, I believe. (I express no opinion about whether that upload was a good idea or not.) Ari Didn't you sponsor the upload? Um, so? While yes the sponsor is at fault, it seems

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-30 Thread Brian Nelson
Andrew Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 06:36:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 17:50, Ari Pollak wrote: Didn't you sponsor the upload? No, that was me... This Colin Colin confusion has been quite contagious this season, hasn't it? = P Just

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-30 Thread Ari Pollak
I had been taking the full brunt of the responsibility for the xscreensaver NMU, but since I was a pre-NM at the time and sponsors of uploads are supposed to follow Debian policy as well, he ended up taking most of the responsibility. This was a similar situation; however, I felt it was

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-30 Thread Sam Hartman
Ari == Ari Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ari I had been taking the full brunt of the responsibility for Ari the xscreensaver NMU, but since I was a pre-NM at the time Ari and sponsors of uploads are supposed to follow Debian policy Ari as well, he ended up taking most of the

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-29 Thread martine
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:47:29AM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote: Maybe I forgot something... maybe this episode could be seen as not so important but it hit me strongly, in particular from the point of view of my idea about Our Project and Our Work. I don't know if I'll take care further of

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-29 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:47:29AM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote: On 17 Nov 2002 Ari made a NMU for logjam 4.0.0+cvs.2002.11.17 and another one a few days after that date, IIRC, without a note to me. I was handling bugs for logjam, as you can see in BTS (#165281). Build failure reported by

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-29 Thread Christian Surchi
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:14:14PM -0500, Ari Pollak wrote: Firstly, I don't think this is a matter for debian-devel as it doesn't involve the project as a whole and would best be dealt with privately. I've already written to you. I wanted to share my ideas because I don't like this situation

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-29 Thread Sam Hartman
Christian == Christian Surchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian Ari wrote to me in the end of october to ask me about Christian my intention about logjam packaging. I had an enormous Christian backlog and I could not be able to reply. Then he filed Christian a wishlist bug

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-29 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 04:41:38PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: If you're complaining that the NMU was handled improperly and that the communication/policy should have been better, then it seems you're right. The person performing the NMU has already indicated that they are sorry they didn't

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-29 Thread Ari Pollak
IIRC Ari has caused upset with NMUs before; xscreensaver, I believe. (I express no opinion about whether that upload was a good idea or not.) Didn't you sponsor the upload?

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-29 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 05:50:36PM -0500, Ari Pollak wrote: Colin Watson wrote: IIRC Ari has caused upset with NMUs before; xscreensaver, I believe. (I express no opinion about whether that upload was a good idea or not.) Didn't you sponsor the upload? No. Perhaps that was Colin

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-29 Thread Colin Walters
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 17:50, Ari Pollak wrote: IIRC Ari has caused upset with NMUs before; xscreensaver, I believe. (I express no opinion about whether that upload was a good idea or not.) Didn't you sponsor the upload? No, that was me...

New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-28 Thread Christian Surchi
I'm in Debian also because I like cooperative work and I hope Debian Project is not a competition, but I had to change my opinion because I did not receive respect from new maintainer Ari Pollak; and Debian did not receive any respect too. I maintain logjam (a client for livejournal web site

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

2002-11-28 Thread Ari Pollak
Firstly, I don't think this is a matter for debian-devel as it doesn't involve the project as a whole and would best be dealt with privately. Secondly, I'd like to apologize to Christian and the Debian project for not following exact policy. However, in my defense, I did contact Christian