On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> For the moment I've only had the time to read the slide, I'll postpone
> the .ogg. But indeed my proposal is exactly the same as yours ... and
> actually your slides contradict what you're claiming above. I guess
> that's because the discussion after
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 07:12:50PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The typical QA scenario is "apt-get source", hack, debuild, dput.
> Precisely because the usual QA worker doesn't care enough about the
> package, it's a one-shot work. So the reference is the archive itself and
> the SVN in the mid
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But ... it happened to me in the past that I was willing to fix a couple
> of bugs in an orphaned package but not to take over its maintenance. I
> guess it's a pretty common scenario. In those cases having it already in
> collab-maint would have eas
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 04:45:51PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> It's in my opinion not a good idea to promote orphaned packages. If an
> orphaned package is worth keeping, it should find a maintainer easily. Else
> it should be marked for removal, not added to the collab-maint svn
> repository IMHO
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Hi, maybe I'm proposing something obvious or already attempted in the
past here, ... but let's try anyway!
In order to spread the adagio that ``every DD is Debian QA'', what about
uploading to the collab-maint subversion repository on alioth [1] all
the orphaned package
Hi, maybe I'm proposing something obvious or already attempted in the
past here, ... but let's try anyway!
In order to spread the adagio that ``every DD is Debian QA'', what about
uploading to the collab-maint subversion repository on alioth [1] all
the orphaned packages which lack a collaborative
6 matches
Mail list logo
