On 18/05/08 at 16:27 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:18:12PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
But the problem we want to solve is making things easier for
upstreams.
Oh? When I read the proposal, I understood that the problem we want to
solve is about tracking changes we
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:05:41PM +, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 18/05/08 at 16:27 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:18:12PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
But the problem we want to solve is making things easier for
upstreams.
Oh? When I read the proposal, I
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:05 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 18/05/08 at 16:27 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:18:12PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
But the problem we want to solve is making things easier for
upstreams.
Oh? When I read the proposal, I understood
2008/5/18 Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The problem I am interested in solving is:
It is currently difficult for people not involved in Debian
development (upstream, other distros, users) to know which patches we
applied, the reason for the patch, and whether they should be
interested
On 18/05/08 at 16:44 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 17:05 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 18/05/08 at 16:27 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 03:18:12PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
But the problem we want to solve is making things easier for
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 18:22 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The problem I am interested in solving is:
It is currently difficult for people not involved in Debian
development (upstream, other distros, users) to know which patches we
applied, the reason for the patch, and whether
(please don't remove Ccs. I added one for a reason)
On 18/05/08 at 18:02 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 18:22 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The problem I am interested in solving is:
It is currently difficult for people not involved in Debian
development
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 19:39 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
(please don't remove Ccs. I added one for a reason)
(Not sure you want d-devel and direct since I know you are subscribed,
so removed that one. :-))
That sounds logical to have both:
- they know that distro devs are not perfect and
(you can skip to the end for a summary of what I think we agree on)
On 18/05/08 at 19:49 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
I still like the two-stage closure option because sometimes we just need
to upload a fix before an upstream release can be made and the bug
submitter should know that the
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 21:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
(you can skip to the end for a summary of what I think we agree on)
The only
thing that he would additionaly get is a notification when the change is
applied upstream and fixed in Debian by a new upstream version.
Don echoed
10 matches
Mail list logo
