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 t
* 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:
> >
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 Bu
* 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
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 Chang
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
* 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 10:48:39PM +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:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2005/11/msg01
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 c
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)
* 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]
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
--
* 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
> > > no
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 debian-i
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 n
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
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.
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 comp
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] i
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
>
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 d
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:
[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
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 c
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 a
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
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 t
* 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 optio
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
[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
> > whe
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 bl
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 y
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
