Am 16.04.19 um 09:17 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2019, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> "Not used by any sponsor" is often used internally in commit messages as
>> an additional comment, reason and clarification why a certain issue is
>
> In commit message to which repository?
>
Hi,
On 16/04/2019 09:20, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2019, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
>> On 09/04/2019 09:50, Ingo Wichmann wrote:
>>> labeling it "minor issues" when the real reason is "sponsors needed"
>>> sounds wrong to me.
>> That's never been the real reason so far AFAICS, only a
Hi,
On Tue, 09 Apr 2019, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> On 09/04/2019 09:50, Ingo Wichmann wrote:
> > labeling it "minor issues" when the real reason is "sponsors needed"
> > sounds wrong to me.
>
> That's never been the real reason so far AFAICS, only a complementary
> reason.
Ok, still to not
Hi,
On Mon, 08 Apr 2019, Markus Koschany wrote:
> "Not used by any sponsor" is often used internally in commit messages as
> an additional comment, reason and clarification why a certain issue is
In commit message to which repository?
I think you are mixing the ELTS security tracker here.
>
Hi Sylvain,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:18:08PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/04/2019 21:56, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:51:19PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> >> Recently I noticed that for a no-dsa (either for no-dsa or the
> >> stronger ignored) as
On Tuesday 09 April 2019 03:09 AM, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 08.04.19 um 21:51 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
>> Hi LTS contributors,
>>
>> Recently I noticed that for a no-dsa (either for no-dsa or the
>> stronger ignored) as explanation was started to be used e.g. "not used
>> by any
Hi,
On 09/04/2019 09:50, Ingo Wichmann wrote:
> labeling it "minor issues" when the real reason is "sponsors needed"
> sounds wrong to me.
That's never been the real reason so far AFAICS, only a complementary
reason.
[jessie] - libpodofo (DoS, not used by any sponsor)
[jessie] -
Hi Hugo,
"funding needed" is OK to me, too.
But to me, the packages that we're talking about are "orphaned in LTS".
To change that, we need a Debian Maintainer to pick that package, fix it
and upload it.
Maybe that Debian Maintainer needs funding, maybe not. But still
"funding needed" would be
Hi Ingo,
> labeling it "minor issues" when the real reason is "sponsors needed"
> sounds wrong to me.
>
> I'd say "minor issues" is right for minor issues. And "sponsors needed"
> is a legitimate, helpful additional information.
>
> It seems to me, that it's not uncommon to Debian to search for
Hi,
labeling it "minor issues" when the real reason is "sponsors needed"
sounds wrong to me.
I'd say "minor issues" is right for minor issues. And "sponsors needed"
is a legitimate, helpful additional information.
It seems to me, that it's not uncommon to Debian to search for a sponsor
of a
> If LTS is meant as Debian project, then I would suggest not to start
> to use those formulations, which I think are fine for ELTS, which is a
> dedicated project not on Debian directly. Saying something is not DSA
> worthy or is going to be ignored, because it's not used by a LTS
> sponsor will
Am 08.04.19 um 21:51 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso:
> Hi LTS contributors,
>
> Recently I noticed that for a no-dsa (either for no-dsa or the
> stronger ignored) as explanation was started to be used e.g. "not used
> by any sponsor".
>
> If LTS is meant as Debian project, then I would suggest not
Hi,
On 08/04/2019 21:56, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:51:19PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>> Recently I noticed that for a no-dsa (either for no-dsa or the
>> stronger ignored) as explanation was started to be used e.g. "not used
>> by any sponsor".
That sounds
13 matches
Mail list logo
