On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I gave it a bit more thought, but yes, I still think separation would be
> better. Even if the infrastructure change would not be a game changer,
> you can see it as a dependency of the role/commitment part.
Yes. OK, I'll try to decouple them at lea
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 08:28:59AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> You're probably right that I should deal with them separately. But in
> truth, this part is the one where I see the most long term benefits for
> Debian because MIA tracking, knowing who is responsible of what, and
> what you can ex
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I expect that the most difficult part will be to decide how to deal with
> > the "commitment tracking" part. What should we log? What sort of
> > relationships should be defined and what should they imply (in terms of
> > default set of information
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 04:32:40PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I have started to work on a DEP that is a bit broader in scope but that
> should fix this at the same time.
>
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep2/
Thanks a lot for doing this!
There many many things in it that I like and that I thi
Hi,
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:39:57AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > If someone cares enough about that to work on it, I'd like to see a
> > document(DEP-like) that would include:
>
> I second this proposal, it seems to really be what we need.
>
Le lundi 1 décembre 2008 08:39:23, vous avez écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation
> > > but I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should
Hi,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Currently Dak and debbugs mail directly the Maintainer and send a copy to
> the PTS. Other services mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this one also mails the
> Maintainer and send a copy the PTS.
>
> You ask to modify the PTS to mail the Uploaders and I respond that it's
> n
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:39:57AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> If someone cares enough about that to work on it, I'd like to see a
> document(DEP-like) that would include:
I second this proposal, it seems to really be what we need.
Unfortunately, I don't see myself having the energy to pursue t
On 01/12/08 at 08:39 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation but
> > > I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should b
Hi,
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation but
> > I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should be auto-subscribed and that
> > we should simplify the situation
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 08:27:19PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
> listed in
Just to be sure: did you really mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
They are two different things.
AFAICT the latter is handled by the P
Hi,
On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation but
> I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should be auto-subscribed and that
> we should simplify the situation by having all services mail directly the
> PTS. A
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 29/11/08 at 20:27 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > package: package.qa.debian.org
> > severity: wishlist
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
> > listed in
> > maintainers and to those subscrib
On 30/11/08 at 10:49 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 29/11/08 at 20:27 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > package: package.qa.debian.org
> > > severity: wishlist
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send t
On 29/11/08 at 20:27 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> package: package.qa.debian.org
> severity: wishlist
>
> Hi,
>
> currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
> listed in
> maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send
> to the address
Hi,
On Sunday 30 November 2008 01:45, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> (One could say that they should receive the mail nevertheless because
> they've put their name in the control file. That's a valid point of
> view, but that's not the "status quo", and it's debatable whether it
> should be that way, beca
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (30/11/2008):
> > Why? Uploaders are probably subscribed to the PTS, *or* the
> > maintainer is a mailing list.
>
> not always.
dpkg-reconfigure $user, then. Not a PTS bug, at least seen from here.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:20:17 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
> > listed in
> > maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be
> > send
> > to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so.
> Why? Uploa
18 matches
Mail list logo
