Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)
On 30/05/08 at 17:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:25:34 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
On 30/05/08 at 18:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Now, what we don't agree on:
- I think that giving some time should only be very strongly
recommended, but not mandatory.
- You think that giving some time should be
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 05:17:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 30 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything
wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting
time, but that's your own problem). So no reasons
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)
In spite of my intention to not comment any further, I just cannot
let this
On 31/05/08 at 04:25 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)
In spite of my
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 30/05/08 at 18:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Now, what we don't agree on:
- I think that giving some time should only be very strongly
recommended, but not mandatory.
- You think that giving some
Le Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some
time to the maintainer to react
Hi Lucas,
excellence is definitely what we should aim for :)
Thank you for your efforts. Here are my last comments on
On 01/06/08 at 00:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some
time to the maintainer to react
Hi Lucas,
excellence is definitely what we should aim for :)
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I propose to add NMUs are usually not appropriate for
team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
instead. to the bullet list.
It really depends on the team. There are small teams where all members
might become unresponsive
Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I propose to add NMUs are usually not appropriate for
team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
instead. to the bullet list.
It really depends on the team. There are small teams where all members
might become
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
All members of a team becoming unresponsive is possible, agreed.
But it is a hell of a lot less likely than at least one member of
the team being able to respond to urgently needed changes if
appropriately notified.
So, why should there be any
On 31/05/08 at 18:44 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I propose to add NMUs are usually not appropriate for
team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
instead. to the bullet list.
It really depends on the team. There are small
Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
All members of a team becoming unresponsive is possible, agreed.
But it is a hell of a lot less likely than at least one member of
the team being able to respond to urgently needed changes if
appropriately notified.
So, why should
On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:20:55 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Steve, Manoj, Charles, Richard, does this address your concerns? If
not, can you propose some additional changes?
This new version does sound a lot better.
manoj
--
If voting could really change
On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:13:43 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 30/05/08 at 17:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
For the record, I don't think that we should remove the language
about informing the maintainer with a mail message; and no, I don't
think we quite have a
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
* Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least on the
BTS? Has the maintainer been notified of it? It is also a good
idea to try to contact the maintainer by other means (private
email, IRC)
IMO private mail is
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...
Sure. For me it is not necessarily about teams, but more about active:
likely to respond and take care of urgent issues
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
So far, you (in [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Charles Plessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) raised that concern.
Sure, but Steve Langasek, Manoj and Frank Küster have been voicing what
are basically the same concerns.
On
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:55:37AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 30/05/08 at 18:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Now, what we don't agree on:
- I think that giving some time should only be very strongly
recommended,
On 31/05/08 at 20:41 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
* Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least on the
BTS? Has the maintainer been notified of it? It is also a good
idea to try to contact the maintainer by other means
On 31/05/08 at 21:33 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
So far, you (in [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Charles Plessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) raised that concern.
Sure, but Steve Langasek, Manoj and Frank Küster have been
On 31/05/08 at 21:02 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...
Sure. For me it is not necessarily about teams, but more about active:
likely
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I also stressed that in the intro, and removed the second paragraph of
the intro, which didn't really add any value.
Agreed.
+ * If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you
+ tried to contact him? In general it should be
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Heh, eew)
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 08:52:02PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The news are collected on http://wiki.debian.org/DeveloperNews
Feel free to contribute.
~/.ssh/authorized_keys will remain disabled by default
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:18:14PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Because bugs may also have been (or seem to have been overlooked). The
risk here is that the person doing the NMU thinks oh, that's an old
issue and the fix seems so simple and goes ahead and NMUs it, while
there may be very valid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dropped]
On Sat, 31 May 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think this is a great example of why announcements like this should be
sent to debian-devel-announce in the first place, instead of being relegated
to the debian-infrastructure-announce list that most developers aren't
26 matches
Mail list logo
