On 10/27/2012 04:47 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
For example if package is not maintained for years we can certainly wait for a
month or two before orphaning even though there may be no need to wait that
long.
This unfortunately cannot be set as a rule. Sometimes, a package that was
left
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Similarly, Steve: can you comment on the criticism of voting on
packages, why don't you see it as a problem?
[…]
*I am not proposing a new process*. This was the process that was
used for *years* via debian-qa. But, evidently
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:21:41 Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/27/2012 04:47 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
For example if package is not maintained for years we can certainly wait
for a month or two before orphaning even though there may be no need to
wait that long.
This unfortunately cannot be
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 04:18:26AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
- There does need to be a mandatory minimum waiting period. This process
is going to be seen as blessed via the devref; we should not be
blessing a process
On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:09:18 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 04:18:26AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
- There does need to be a mandatory minimum waiting period. This
process
is going to be
Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com (27/10/2012):
If the maintainer never responds, then (it turns out) there was no
need for the delay. So there are cases where delay is pointless,
the problem is that you can't tell in advance if you're in one of
those cases or not.
Thankfully, nothing
Hi Lucas,
As you know I agree with you on most aspects.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I find third-party reviews
and ACKs a good way to reinforce the feeling that the orphaning is the
right thing to do.
Absolutely.
Note that it's often users who
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:06:34AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Why not start with a without objection standard and see how it works?
The without objection approach would require a reasonable delay for people to
raise objections (some say two months). The ACK/NACK approach allows to reach
a
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan the
package.
Orphaning the package it not the final outcome. The goal is to get packages
salvaged. See the two activities explained here:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 04:20:43PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
If someone notices that a package is in need of greater attention, but
cannot commit to attending it themselves, it's important that the
packages is marked at least as needing help.
I understand the entire point here is to mark
Hi,
I'm wondering, before a package will be orphaned is it possible/
needful the owner to ask for help or to express the reasons?
Regards
gnugr
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:52:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
priority that the problems are
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:09:55PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
the package into a better maintained state.
Lucas' proposal discussed in this thread is about adding a lightweight
procedure to mark obviously
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:05:40PM +, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
When fixing non important bugs, or improving the package quality, like
switching to format 3 source, arranging the rules file, and so on, I fear
it will be very difficult to find a sponsor for these nmus.
Having 3/1 (1/0?)
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
No, it makes the process based on *consensus*, which is a minimum
requirement.
It also means that the salvager has to do more work.
I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention. And the
ACKs are about agreeing on marking a
On 10/26/2012 01:09 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention. And
the ACKs are about agreeing on marking a package as orphaned. That's
the easy part. The salvaging part goes via the existing ITA procedure.
That's the hard part. Regards, Bart
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes:
I think that sufficient DDs will review the ITOs. Note that most work is
already done by the ITO submitter. Sponsoring a package at mentors
(review
other peoples work) is, in my opinion, much more work than reading an ITO
and
sending an ACK.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 04:12:03PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/26/2012 01:09 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention.
And the ACKs are about agreeing on marking a package as orphaned.
That's the easy part. The salvaging part goes via the
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:59:16AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes:
I think that sufficient DDs will review the ITOs. Note that most work is
already done by the ITO submitter. Sponsoring a package at mentors
(review
other peoples work) is, in my
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:48:18AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
why would it hurt
to bake in a worst-case scenario with no acks or nacks? (I can accept
defaulting to no too, after a timeout, as long as there's one. I would
find the result pointless and silly, but at least it puts an end to it,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 08:35, vangelis mouhtsis a écrit :
Hi, I'm wondering, before a package will be orphaned is it
possible/ needful the owner to ask for help or to express the
reasons?
Regards gnugr
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
Look for RFH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote: AIUI, with the current
proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be orphaned, the
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:06:34AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Why not start with a without objection standard and see how it
works?
The without objection approach would require a reasonable delay for
people to
raise objections (some say two months).
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard
and
fast objective thing. It's
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't
think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
I respect
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote: AIUI, with the current
proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be
On Friday, October 26, 2012 01:40:26 PM Bart Martens wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Le 26/10/2012 08:46, Bart Martens a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote: AIUI, with the
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:17:13AM -0400, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Well, that's what I was trying to get at: I think your method puts too
many barriers in the way of someone who wants to take over an effectively
abandoned package. It also requires *more*
Russ Allbery writes (Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages):
I think orphaned packages are one of our best opportunities to attract new
developers, rather than serving as an additional obligation for existing
developers. [etc.]
Thanks for that excellent analysis
Bart Martens writes (Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages - skipping pointless delay):
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
3. Wait for objections
For how long ? The proposal includes collecting ACKs so that any pointless
delay can
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
adoption will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
package as its new maintainer. The
On 10/26/2012 05:07 PM, Bart Martens wrote:
People interested in salvaging an unmaintained package are discouraged by the
current procedures. The new procedure is meant to add a lightweight procedure
to mark unmaintained packages as orphaned, so that anyone interested can adopt
them without
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:56:02 Bart Martens wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:06:57AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
If bug was unanswered for let's say two months the package is free to
orphan
Some prefer no delay, some prefer one month, some prefer two months. I
originally wanted one
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:40:26 Bart Martens wrote:
So why not agree now that the maintainer can veto the process?
Because this would raise the question how long should we wait for the
maintainer to object or to remain silent. In obvious cases, for example
when the package has clearly not
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:51:57 Ian Jackson wrote:
I still think that the right standard is no objection rather than
collecting some explicit number of acks. In particular I don't think
any number of acks ought to override a nack from the existing
maintainer.
Indeed. I think lack of enough
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:30PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
adoption will continue to mean
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:30PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think this is where language is
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:33:27PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
We already orphan packages without the maintainer's consent, and it's
already called orphaning.
Salvaging is still undefined
No, it is not. The definition was clear from the first use of the term.
Stop trying to redefine it.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:33:27PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
We already orphan packages without the maintainer's consent, and it's
already called orphaning.
Salvaging is still undefined
No, it is not. The definition was clear from
Hi Zack,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:19:34PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli 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
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
[...]
All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
reject what
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
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
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:24:24PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
So in sum, I'm broadly in favor of Lucas's patch, except:
- A single nack is evidence of a lack of consensus. If consensus can't be
achieved, it should be referred to the TC instead of making a political
mess of things
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
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
2012/10/25 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org
It may just mean you've managed to send
your request to the wrong place
As I see, almost all debian guys are so courteous that they point to the
right place.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 25/10/2012 01:51, Steve Langasek a écrit :
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:
On 24/10/12 at 08:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That could work either way. If you're in such a rush to build consensus you
could change 3/1 ACK/NACK ratio to without objection (objections result in
disputes resolved by the tech ctte) and have a +1 from me.
The problem is that once in
On 23/10/12 at 17:19 +, 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 started at [1].
On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
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
On 10/25/2012 07:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
No. We're talking here about silence *from the entire Debian developer
community* in response to a call for orphaning. That says nothing
about whether the package is orphaned. It may just mean you've managed
to send your request to the wrong place
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
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...
Should we then leave the package forever unmaintained?
I don't think this is
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you should
go
ahead with the orphaning, then the system is not working as designed and
consensus has not been achieved.
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
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
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
However, so far, it seems that the discussion is split between people
that think it would work, and people that think it would not work.
Maybe we could try for a few months, and if it does not work, fix it?
+1
Kind regards
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:15:48 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 24/10/12 at 08:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That could work either way. If you're in such a rush to build consensus
you could change 3/1 ACK/NACK ratio to without objection (objections
result in disputes resolved by
Scott Kitterman writes (Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages):
Why not start with a without objection standard and see how it
works?
I absolutely agree with this.
If we adopt a without objection standard then the whole process can
be a lot simpler too
Andreas Tille writes (Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages):
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
However, so far, it seems that the discussion is split between people
that think it would work, and people that think it would not work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 25/10/2012 15:50, Ian Jackson a écrit :
I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan
the package. The salvager should surely be adding themselves as
an Uploader.
Is that in addition to or instead of orphaning the package?
Thibaut Paumard writes (Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages):
Le 25/10/2012 15:50, Ian Jackson a écrit :
I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan
the package. The salvager should surely be adding themselves as
an Uploader
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:00:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Andreas Tille writes (Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages):
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
However, so far, it seems that the discussion is split between people
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
priority that the problems are
Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:51:16AM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
So yes, I say long silence from the entire community *including the
package maintainer(s)* probably means it's safer to orphan the package
than not. I would probably send a few pings during the one month
period though. I would
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Scott Kitterman writes (Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another
maintainer's packages):
Why not start with a without objection standard and see how it
works?
I absolutely agree with this.
If we adopt
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:09:55 Michael Gilbert wrote:
I would prefer to see even more autonomy for the salvager and less
bugging of various lists (ITPs on -devel are already distracting
enough). With that, I would like to suggest rewriting steps 2-4 as:
2. Salvager uploads liberal
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
[...]
All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
reject what they consider SPAM without the customer's knowledge. If
the sender
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
[...]
All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
reject what
I think this proposal is a little bit too complicated and not straightforward
enough.
Clearly we have two different situations:
* Maintainer is not active and we want to orphan a particular package.
(just to orphan without adoption)
For this case filing a bug please orphan this package
On Thursday 25 October 2012 19:09:55 Michael Gilbert wrote:
(...)
I would prefer to see even more autonomy for the salvager and less
bugging of various lists (ITPs on -devel are already distracting
enough). With that, I would like to suggest rewriting steps 2-4 as:
2. Salvager uploads
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
On Thursday 25 October 2012 19:09:55 Michael Gilbert wrote:
(...)
I would prefer to see even more autonomy for the salvager and less
bugging of various lists (ITPs on -devel are already distracting
enough). With that, I would like
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
When fixing non important bugs, or improving the package quality, like
switching to format 3 source, arranging the rules file, and so on, I fear
it will be very difficult to find a sponsor for these nmus.
That is because those changes
On 25.10.2012 21:09, Michael Gilbert wrote:
2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
the package into a better maintained state.
Please let's not go that road. Mixing-up the concept of a bad maintained
package and the concept of NMUs together does not
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
On 25.10.2012 21:09, Michael Gilbert wrote:
2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
the package into a better maintained state.
Please let's not go that road. Mixing-up the concept of a bad maintained
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes:
As I've said many times now, the liberal NMU would not be a license for
packaging style changes. In fact, no NMU is allowed to make those
changes (the fact that people are doing it is apparently a social issue,
and solutions to those are hard). It
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
As I've said many times now, the liberal NMU would not be a license for
packaging style changes. In fact, no NMU is allowed to make those
changes (the fact that people are doing it is apparently a social issue,
and solutions to those are
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes:
Again, I think it comes down to language. If we view salvaging as a
process that is initially meant to help the existing maintainer, then it
makes sense to continue to work with the package as he/she intended.
When the 3 month clock expires, and
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I certainly have no objection to people doing this, but I'm not sure
that's really what we're discussing here. I think the thread is more
about the ongoing issue that we seem to have in
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Michael Gilbert writes:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I certainly have no objection to people doing this, but I'm not sure
that's really what we're discussing here. I think the thread is more
about the ongoing issue
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't
think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which part do you believe
won't work in common cases? It's just applying existing NMU rules with
a little more liberalism to increase activity in under-maintained
packages, so I personally can't
Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org writes:
Don't we expect the same adaptability of anyone trying to become a
co-maintainer of any other package?
No, because in the typical comaintenance situation, the other maintainers
will teach the newcomer how to package according to the team standards,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
adoption will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
package as its new maintainer. The term salvage, in my opinion, we
can define as a process
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:41:25PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Someone wrote:
I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you
should go
ahead with the orphaning,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:50:10PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
4. When/if
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:51:12PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
adoption will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
package as its new
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 05:09:07AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:41:25PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Someone wrote:
I disagree on this point. If you can't get
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:06:57AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
If bug was unanswered for let's say two months the package is free to orphan
Some prefer no delay, some prefer one month, some prefer two months. I
originally wanted one month, but I got convinced by others to drop the delay.
Now
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:32:25PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I don't object to ACKs, but the requirement to get a certain ACK/NACK ratio.
I see risk of this devolving into a popularity contest.
I think it should either be unanimous or there is a dispute that the tech
ctte needs to
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 08:36:37AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
ACK and NACK is jargon that is not obvious to everybody, and in my impression
it sounds like an invitation to not explain one's position. I propose that
you
rephrase with more common words, such as support or object.
ACK ;-)
On 2012-10-23, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
Otherwise stated, the proposal is *exactly* what you're proposing, plus
some consensus-based best practice to deal with the missing else
branch of your point (3).
seriously. if it is exactly what I'm proposing, then why does it have to
On 10/24/2012 11:55 AM, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I fear a bit the situation nobody care enough to comment, being
interpreted as lack of consensus. But I do think in that case we should
_eventually_ allow the orphaning to happen (after
Le mardi, 23 octobre 2012 19.19:37, Sune Vuorela a écrit :
1) report a bug 'should this package be orphaned?' against the package
with a more or less defalut templated text and a serious severity
Make it 'affects qa.debian.org', with an eventual usertag, eventually X-
Debbugs-CC debian-qa@ldo,
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
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,
Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:32:25PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I don't object to ACKs, but the requirement to get a certain ACK/NACK
ratio. I see risk of this devolving into a popularity contest.
I think it should either be unanimous or there is a
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:59:09PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/24/2012 11:55 AM, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I fear a bit the situation nobody care enough to comment, being
interpreted as lack of consensus. But I do think in that
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:59:09PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 10/24/2012 11:55 AM, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I fear a bit the situation nobody care enough to comment, being
interpreted as lack of consensus. But I do think in that
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you should go
ahead with the orphaning, then the system is not working as designed and
consensus has not been achieved. It's then incumbent on the person looking
to
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
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
On 10/25/2012 12:11 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
And I don't think this is a realistic scenario. Why can't you find N
other DDs who agree with you that the package should be taken over?
Hum ... and what makes you think that it will always be easy
to find people to ACK? Making sure that a package
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
