On 05/04/13 14:06, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes ("SI units (was Re: failure to communicate)"):
>> It may actually be useful for the technical committee to review what is
>> on the wiki and make some general statement about Debian's position (if
>&
Quoting Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org):
> But, are you seriously proposing that we leave the issue as-is ???
Of course. The issue is there since partman exists (about 2005, from
memory) and has probably never prevented anyone to install Debian
since then. So, yes, this issue will still be in w
[ Not answering all occurrences, things got repeated a few times… ]
Thomas Goirand (06/04/2013):
> I've wrote that we should at least address the issue, in a way or
> another, through the next point release if that is safer.
It is not.
> But, are you seriously proposing that we leave the issue
On 04/06/2013 12:16 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Le vendredi, 5 avril 2013 17.52:19, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
>> On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>> And all of these features will only land for the next cycle
>>> with a release in ~= 2 years time.
>> I really hop
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 02:50:19AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>> Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
> >>> the release of wheezy.
> >> Christian,
> >>
> >> Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
> >> to having partitions not aligned t
On 04/05/2013 10:40 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
>>> the release of wheezy.
>> Christian,
>>
>> Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can le
a écrit :
> You want that bug fixed? Great: test the patch, document your tests
I did all that.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684128#103
> gather feedback, get involved
quoting from the above:
I would be interested to hear suggestions as to what sort of tests
of bi
Hi Thomas,
Le vendredi, 5 avril 2013 17.52:19, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> > And all of these features will only land for the next cycle
> > with a release in ~= 2 years time.
>
> I really hope that it wont be the case. That it doesn't go into
> De
On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> The default to base-10 units, is good as majority of the installer
> deals with HDD drives (not SSD) and not RAM.
Come on... it's not! Let's be serious 5 minutes here.
There isn't even a warning about which units are in use.
This fools our users (me
On 04/05/2013 10:40 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead to having
partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary, meaning that your system would be
slow.
If any tools don't r
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
> > the release of wheezy.
> Christian,
>
> Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
> to having partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:28:32AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Can we *PLEASE* stop making new threads. It's getting *REALLY* hard to
> keep playing whack-a-mole with my bozo bin.
Fix your mailer… I see precisely one thread, correctly linked together
via message-id and references headers, wit
Am Freitag, den 05.04.2013, 12:59 +0100 schrieb Dmitrijs Ledkovs:
> The default to base-10 units, is good as majority of the installer
> deals with HDD drives (not SSD) and not RAM.
SSD manufactures use base-10 units, too. Even 128 GB SSDs have 128 *
10^9 bytes for the users, but 128 * 2^30 bytes
On 4 April 2013 20:47, wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:09:04 +0200
> Christian PERRIER wrote:
>
>> This mail is a very good argument to confirm that overcomplicated
>> methods to make your point will just fail.
>>
>> If you have a point to make it, make ti. Once. With facts.
>
> I supplied plenty
Daniel Pocock writes ("SI units (was Re: failure to communicate)"):
> It may actually be useful for the technical committee to review what is
> on the wiki and make some general statement about Debian's position (if
> they haven't done so in the past), and that can gui
On 04/05/2013 04:43 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
> the release of wheezy.
Christian,
Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
to having partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary, meaning that
your system
Gibibytes. Once wheezy is released, I
> > see no reason for your proposed patch to be "rejected".
>
> Sadly, it appears that failure to communicate was from both sides
>
> Ian was told several times that changes may not be accepted for wheezy
>
> However, that comm
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:26:29AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> It may actually be useful for the technical committee to review what is
> on the wiki and make some general statement about Debian's position (if
> they haven't done so in the past), and that can guide the way similar
> bugs are class
atch to be "rejected".
Sadly, it appears that failure to communicate was from both sides
Ian was told several times that changes may not be accepted for wheezy
However, that communication was overshadowed by several comments
suggesting nobody cares about the issue at all, rather th
Quoting ian_br...@fastmail.net (ian_br...@fastmail.net):
> If Debian bug report #684128 proves anything, it is that you will never
> convince anyone with technical argument, facts advanced in support of
Sorry, but Debian bug #684128 only proves one thing : that we (the D-I
team) were mostly tryin
ay of analogy, this
message will be categorized as "spam" and disappear into thin air.
Perhaps there's some new and improved way of convincing people that I'm
just unaware of. If so, tutorial references would be appreciated.
> Sorry, but this is only about failure to communic
21 matches
Mail list logo
