On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The argument, if I can follow the htread, is about people who
review every line of code, like myself, for all new upstream, and
anything we sponsor, and whether such activity is desirable and
productive.
Manoj, nobody will ever forbid
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:47:12 +0100, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The argument, if I can follow the htread, is about people who
review every line of code, like myself, for all new upstream, and
anything we sponsor, and whether such
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:32:24 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes, and there are various ways to accomplish this, not merely
one. For example, some DDs decide they can trust an upstream, and do
not review every line of code in a new upstream release, while
others do not.
You can
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The implication, unless I am misreading things here, is that code
reviews and inspection of upstream changes are ineffectual. Given
that reviewing code for security is a labour intensive process, the
inference is that it is not worth doing proactive
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Buffer overflows are _still_ being exploited, decades after it is
known that unchecked user input fed to memory allocated on the
stack. And it does not take a rocket scientist to spot a buffer
overflow.
Some buffer overflows are easy to spot, but
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:12:39 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Buffer overflows are _still_ being exploited, decades after it is
known that unchecked user input fed to memory allocated on the
stack. And it does not take a rocket
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2007:03:15 04:22 +1000]:
If people don't do a good job as a maintainer they should have their
priveleges removed fairly promptly; and if a developers recommends
people to be listed as maintainers who turn out to be a problem, or if a
developer just
On Sunday 18 March 2007, Erinn Clark wrote:
- Stratification
As a subset of the power structure thing, one of the other issues I
foresee is a some developers are more equal than others thing
happening. I'm having a hard time thinking of how to explain this,
because it's a bit
* Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007:03:18 12:36 +0100]:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Erinn Clark wrote:
- It's not obvious what problems it's meant to be solving
Is it meant to be a stepping stone for NM? Prevent sponsor(ee) burnout
and boredom? Is it meant to replace NM eventually?
Hi,
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Erinn Clark wrote:
The problem is to allow more small-scale contributors. We have volunteers
who would like to maintain only few specific packages and who don't want
to go the burden to go through NM to be able to do that job. The skills
required to maintain one
Erinn Clark wrote:
- Stratification
As a subset of the power structure thing, one of the other issues I
foresee is a some developers are more equal than others thing
happening. I'm having a hard time thinking of how to explain this,
because it's a bit télétubby, as Joss would say,
* Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED], [2007-03-16 18:05 +]:
I've worked with Yves-Alexis on xfce packaging and sponsored some of his
work into the project or uploaded work that was from the team with large
contributions from him. I can't fault his work or dedication and when
I've pointed
Michael Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian Vote 2006-1 -- I don't want to become a part of the group of
people who were responsible for classifying the GFDL as non-free.
Not even RMS claims the FDL is a free software licence:
I am not sure if the GFDL is a free software license, but I don't
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:47:22PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well at first it is. One of my main sponsoree is Fathi[0]. I sponsor
him for quite a long time now, I'd say a year at least. The beginning of
our relationship was indeed really a teacher/student one. [...]
But for now
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 12:58:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:47:22PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well at first it is. One of my main sponsoree is Fathi[0]. I sponsor
him for quite a long time now, I'd say a year at least. The beginning of
our relationship
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 12:58:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I guess Fathi's worked closely with Daniel Glassey (clucene-core), Gustavo
Franco (desktop-base) and Mark Purcell (KDE extras) so some of them
might have nice things to say about him that might be worth including.
If any of the
Attached is my ${keyid}.changes for fathi boudra, proposed for
inclusion in the DM jetring.
It is debsigned with my own gpg.key, just tell me if it needs any kind
of tweaks in the fields syntax.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Changed-By: Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 04:26:15PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well, I'm still not sure wether DM is a good thing or not in fact. But
I'd say it has te be experimented yes. If we are going that road, Then
I've two people to recommend for this: Fathi and Yves-Alexis Perez that
is our
Michael Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My current sponsor has recently stopped working on Debian development
(to the best of my knowledge), and this proposal would enable me to
keep my packages up-to-date. [snip]
A quick correction: in fact he hasn't completely stopped Debian
development.
On 3/16/07, Simon Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 04:26:15PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well, I'm still not sure wether DM is a good thing or not in fact. But
I'd say it has te be experimented yes. If we are going that road, Then
I've two people to recommend for
Anthony Towns dijo [Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 12:58:40AM +1000]:
(...)
That sounds like a recommendation...
From what I can see [0], in the past six months you've sponsored about
83 uploads for (afaict):
I don't have numbers to prove anything here, but I'm sure any pkg-perl
[1] member will join
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:47:24 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I don't have numbers to prove anything here, but I'm sure any pkg-perl
[1] member will join me recommending Niko Tyni [2].
As a (non-DD) member of the Debian Perl Group I whole-heartedly
second this proposal; Niko is doing a great job in
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:37:38AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If the Debian maintainer uploads a package changing the
Maintainer/Uploaders field to his own name, what happens ?
Nothing in particular. The Maintainer/Uploaders field of the
Instead, will you please explain what you believe would be the advantages to
the *project* that demoting many DDs would bring?
Fairness in the power structure. It would also seem honorable to give
DMs a partial weighted vote (I believe three-fifths of one vote has
some negative connotations,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are good reasons for having the checks that we do in the NM queue; I
don't think there's anything in there that should be cut out, being a full
member of Debian does bring with it a lot of privilege and responsibility,
and the process for deciding
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:02:15PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are good reasons for having the checks that we do in the NM queue; I
don't think there's anything in there that should be cut out, being a full
member of Debian does bring with it a lot of
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
Instead, will you please explain what you believe would be the advantages to
the *project* that demoting many DDs would bring?
Fairness in the power structure. It would also seem honorable to give
How about going after Try hard to improve things,
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Anthony Towns schrieb:
My theory is that we should do something like this:
1) create a class of contributors called debian maintainers
My first thought: do we really need this new class of contributors? I
mean how many people do you
How about going after Try hard to improve things, but don't shake the house
too much while at it? There is a cost to improving things, and if you
have to disturb everyone to do it, then that cost is high. It may not be
worth it.
What? How does that not apply to the very DM proposal that
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:02:15PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The sponsors who have enough time to make such silly claims should be
spending more time checking their sponsorees packages! I wonder if
some of them are sponsoring because they think NM is needlessly slow,
rather than because they want
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] and that's not because I think I can't pass
it, but simply because I'm not looking forward to starting a long,
drawn-out process (average time to complete NM is what? 6 months to a
year?)
According to https://nm.debian.org/ it's
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
How about going after Try hard to improve things, but don't shake the house
too much while at it? There is a cost to improving things, and if you
have to disturb everyone to do it, then that cost is high. It may not be
worth it.
What? How does
On Thursday 15 March 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
How about going after Try hard to improve things, but don't shake the
house too much while at it? There is a cost to improving things,
and if you have to disturb everyone to do it, then that cost is high.
It may not be worth it.
What? How
Kevin Mark wrote:
The question is, is there a way we can minimize the overhead of integrating
contributions from folks who aren't (yet) DDs? Given what I see and hear
from various sponsors, the review of sponsored uploads is already a joke;
Bastian Venthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My first thought: do we really need this new class of contributors? I
mean how many people do you currently know fitting in this category
(don't like to become DD just maintainers). I guess there will be some,
but I think the amount of people should
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:02:15PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are good reasons for having the checks that we do in the NM queue; I
don't think there's anything in there that should be cut out, being a full
member of Debian does bring with it a lot of
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:58:03PM -0400, Michael Olson wrote:
I am one such person who wishes to be able to upload Debian packages
for software that I maintain without becoming a DD. The main reason
for not wanting to become a DD is an adverse reaction to the result of
Debian Vote 2006-1
Clint Adams dijo [Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:22:37PM -0400]:
Really? If this maintainer thing goes through, I think it would set a
horrifying double standard if we don't go ahead and start demoting
people accordingly.
Why should people be grandfathered just because they've passed through
NM
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dijo [Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:22:32AM -0300]:
I (and a lot of other people) would like to give everyone that really
participates in Debian full DD voting privileges. This means translators,
documentation people, and others that have no business getting anywhere
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well me for one:
I've been actively involved with Debian for years (as a translator since
march 2003, and as non-DD maintainer of 1 simple package since may 2005).
Despite having been involved for years I still haven't bothered to go
Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, what part of you can't change this is actually Free? The
outcome was that if something uses the GFDL without invariant sections,
then it is Free (as in DFSG-compliant). If something has invariant
sections, then it (at least that part of it)
Hey all,
Over the past few weeks, after Joey Hess created the jetring keyring
management tool from whole cloth [0], I've been poking at changing dak
to support a maintainers keyring [1] so that we can make it possible for
people who want to work on just one or two packages able to do exactly
Anthony Towns schrieb:
My theory is that we should do something like this:
1) create a class of contributors called debian maintainers
Just a few thoughts. Please note that I'm still undecided whether I like
your idea or not.
My first thought: do we really need this new class of
On mer, 2007-03-14 at 20:50 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
My first thought: do we really need this new class of contributors? I
mean how many people do you currently know fitting in this category
(don't like to become DD just maintainers). I guess there will be
some,
but I think the amount of
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote:
My first thought: do we really need this new class of contributors? I
Yes.
mean how many people do you currently know fitting in this category
(don't like to become DD just maintainers).
I know 2-3 of them already. And because we make it possible,
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
Over the past few weeks, after Joey Hess created the jetring keyring
management tool from whole cloth [0], I've been poking at changing dak
to support a maintainers keyring [1] so that we can make it possible for
people who want to work on just
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 19:22, Anthony Towns wrote:
-- snip --
My theory is that we should do something like this:
1) create a class of contributors called debian maintainers
2) have a group of people authorised to maintain the keyring for
those people, using jetring
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:50:06PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
My first thought: do we really need this new class of contributors? I
mean how many people do you currently know fitting in this category
(don't like to become DD just maintainers).
It's not don't want to be a DD, it's aren't a
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:50:06PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
Anthony Towns schrieb:
My theory is that we should do something like this:
1) create a class of contributors called debian maintainers
My first thought: do we really need this new class of contributors? I
mean how many
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:13:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
The question is, is there a way we can minimize the overhead of integrating
contributions from folks who aren't (yet) DDs? Given what I see and hear
from various sponsors, the review of sponsored uploads is already a joke;
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:44:59PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:13:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
The question is, is there a way we can minimize the overhead of integrating
contributions from folks who aren't (yet) DDs? Given what I see and hear
from
Um. Quantity != quality. I hope no one is going to grant someone upload
privileges based solely on the number of times they've prepared package
revisions.
Good. I hope this means that we're prepared to demote to DM all
DDs that only maintain one or two packages and all DDs that do a
poor
Assuming that was not just an useless sarcastic post, well, you could try to
come up with a technical criteria to do it, and then propose a GR about it
(since it is bound to be a very contentious issue).
I wouldn't bother, though. To me that would just waste time, waste a lot of
effort,
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:56:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:44:59PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
I think the line is rather blurry. If you have someone who just started
in NM and is working on his first or second package, then that
individual should not
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
Really? If this maintainer thing goes through, I think it would set a
Really.
Why should people be grandfathered just because they've passed through
NM or equivalent?
For the same reason people were grandfathered when NM was deployed, maybe?
But that
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:13:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
snip
The question is, is there a way we can minimize the overhead of integrating
contributions from folks who aren't (yet) DDs? Given what I see and hear
from various sponsors, the review of sponsored uploads is already a joke;
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:22:37PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Assuming that was not just an useless sarcastic post, well, you could try to
come up with a technical criteria to do it, and then propose a GR about it
(since it is bound to be a very contentious issue).
I wouldn't bother,
On jeu, 2007-03-15 at 01:41 -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
If person X is a DD and maintaining 2 packages and has never sponsored
anything, then (I dont like 'demoting' as it is an insult to their
contribution) they would not notice a change in their status if it
still allows them to contribute in
58 matches
Mail list logo
