-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 at 04:25:58 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
Index: pkgs.dbk
===
--- pkgs.dbk (revision 8898)
+++ pkgs.dbk (working copy)
@@ -1947,6 +1947,11 @@
itemizedlist
On 25/07/11 at 04:25 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hello,
This bug came up for discussion this evening at DebConf; I think it's
overdue to be followed through on. Lucas seems to agree in the end with my
own believe that there is a weak consensus in favor of the proposed policy,
and it does
On 07/26/2011 12:21 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 04:25:58AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hello,
This bug came up for discussion this evening at DebConf; I think
it's overdue to be followed through on. Lucas seems to agree in
the end with my own believe that there is a
Le Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 08:40:57PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
On 25/07/11 at 04:25 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hello,
This bug came up for discussion this evening at DebConf; I think it's
overdue to be followed through on. Lucas seems to agree in the end with my
own believe that
Hello,
This bug came up for discussion this evening at DebConf; I think it's
overdue to be followed through on. Lucas seems to agree in the end with my
own believe that there is a weak consensus in favor of the proposed policy,
and it does effectively reflect current practice, so I think
On 07/05/11 at 00:08 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 11:31:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I just sent a mail to -devel@ to gather more feedback about the change.
Let's see where that thread will be going then, thanks.
So, apparently, I'm a bit alone on the
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:44:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think that if you want to change the NMU procedures described in
dev-ref, you should at least discuss the proposals in a similar forum
than the one where the current recommendations were discussed, i.e
debian-devel@ or
On 06/05/11 at 20:59 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:44:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think that if you want to change the NMU procedures described in
dev-ref, you should at least discuss the proposals in a similar forum
than the one where the current
On 03/05/11 at 15:38 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I agree that the resulting wording of patch is suboptimal, and that
recommending 0-day NMUs is not the way to go. We are rarely in need for
action in less than a couple of days in Debian, so the current policy
seems fine to me.
I'd like to add
Le mercredi, 4 mai 2011 11.40:18, Neil McGovern a écrit :
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:57:13AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:22:46PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
Yes. If a maintainer is taking more that for a *RC* bug fix, then they
*should* keep the buglog
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:58:57AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 03/05/11 at 15:38 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I agree that the resulting wording of patch is suboptimal, and that
recommending 0-day NMUs is not the way to go. We are rarely in need for
action in less than a couple of days
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think that if you want to change the NMU procedures described in
dev-ref, you should at least discuss the proposals in a similar forum
than the one where the current recommendations were discussed, i.e
debian-devel@ or
Le Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:40:18AM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
These are RC bugs. They're urgent issues.
I find these instructions a too dry. I think that not every RC bug is equal in
its nuisance to users or to the releasability of the next stable version.
How about using urgency to
Hi!
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [110504 19:33]:
They're not helpful if the maintainer already has another fix ready to
go, [..]
In which case the maintainer would have marked the bug pending, and show
activity, no?
Best Regards,
Alexander
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org writes:
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [110504 19:33]:
They're not helpful if the maintainer already has another fix ready to
go, [..]
In which case the maintainer would have marked the bug pending, and show
activity, no?
Right. I mean, not
Package: developers-reference
Tags: patch
Hi,
As announced in the recent mail[0], please find attached a patch to
dev-ref changing the NMU policy.
Thanks,
Neil
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html
--
weasel dpkg: shut up
dpkg No, I won't, and you can't make
[DEP1 drivers CCed].
Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 01:25:49PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
Package: developers-reference
Tags: patch
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html
Index: pkgs.dbk
===
---
On 03/05/11 at 22:27 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
[DEP1 drivers CCed].
Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 01:25:49PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
Package: developers-reference
Tags: patch
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html
Index: pkgs.dbk
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:11:07PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org, 2011-05-03, 13:25:
+Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days, without
maintainer activity for 7 days: 0 days
+/para
+/listitem
+listitem
+para
Oh dear, please don't. I
Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:22:46PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
Yes. If a maintainer is taking more that for a *RC* bug fix, then they
*should* keep the buglog updated with status.
Talking about the GCC 4.6 “*RC bugs*”, I got one other report telling that
Debian's GCC 4.6.1 will introduce
20 matches
Mail list logo
