On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
This isn't prohibited or prevented by the current proposal. Moreover, it
explicitly lists the FD and DAM members as people who can implement what
you are proposing here.
So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
something
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:17:53AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Martin Schulze wrote:
ftbfs.de is dealing with volatile, experimental buildd's, non official
architectures. Thing that I'd have personally liked to see dealt with
by debian.org and DSA. Sadly, DSA is
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:38:18AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
And, BTW, the buildd admins of the experimental buildds are in touch
with the buildd admins of the unstable buildds - and I discussed that
matter with Ryan and James before setting up
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:52:02PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
The top complaints I'm reading from
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After that meeting [0], I'd assumed it was in Christoph and Marc's capable
hands,
... without ever *asking* if that would be true. I assumed this idea to
be dead because last year's discussion on -newmaint showed that most DDs
were against that proposal.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:24:36AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
something different and then saying we can change it later. It's always
easier to change things before they start.
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(i) You have added a policy for everything, but removal from the DM list
is still under-defined. This is a crappy idea. Imagine a Sven Luther
Under-defined? It lists two criteria for forceful removal: request
from the DAM and request from
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(2) As soon as someone is in the DM keyring, a DD can give him
upload rights for virtually every package by adding the DM to
the Uploaders field and adding the
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not saying that the DD is malicious, but simply a moron. That
happens more often, really.
OK, the DD is a moron and marks a random package X as a DM-allowed by
doing a NMU. Maintainer of X notices this and does an immediate upload
which
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not saying that the DD is malicious, but simply a moron. That
happens more often, really.
OK, the DD is a moron and marks a random package X as a DM-allowed by
doing a NMU. Maintainer of X notices
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. DD moron allows DM moron to upload crappy packages, noone
notices. I'm amazed that you fail to see a problem.
Ah, you're saying that a Joe R. Developer doesn't care to take a look
at the changes when some random developer does an NMU on his
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. DD moron allows DM moron to upload crappy packages, noone
notices. I'm amazed that you fail to see a problem.
Ah, you're saying that a Joe R. Developer doesn't care to take a look
at the changes when
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I'm not. Is it so hard to imagine that a DM could maintain (adopt,
co-maintain, ...) something and still do a horrible job?
It isn't. But, as this is no worse situation than we currently have
with sponsoring, I don't really see it as a
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I'm not. Is it so hard to imagine that a DM could maintain (adopt,
co-maintain, ...) something and still do a horrible job?
It isn't. But, as this is no worse situation than we currently have
with
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you just read the long email I just sent a few hours ago? You
replied to it, so I assume you have noticed it, but somehow I get the
impression that you didn't actually have a look at the content.
I guess I misunderstood this comment:
(2)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:32:12AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(2) As soon as someone is in the DM keyring, a DD can give him
upload rights for virtually every package by
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:43:28AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Really, this GR (despite the appearance due to the initial policy being
worded in the GR) is not about implementation details but about a general
direction that we want to have or not.
No it's not. General directions are
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
(i) You have added a policy for everything, but removal from the DM list
is still under-defined.
Yes. I haven't seen an example of removing a contributor that's worked
well, so I don't have a process *to* define. At
Le lundi 30 juillet 2007 à 20:22 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
The only way I can see for anyone without ftpmaster privileges to
implement it, GR or not, is by automatically re-signing uploads from
DMs with their own keys, which doesn't sound terribly ideal to me.
That hasn't prevented some
On 11096 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
what you do in private.
I dont have a problem with it being public.
I have one with someone just making
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11096 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
what you do in private.
I dont have a problem with it being public.
I have one
Anthony Towns wrote:
If there are really that many DDs that are morons that they need to be
dealt with by policy, n-m isn't doing its job.
I'm sure there are quite a few who predate NM
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, the GR is needed to avoid James using his DSA privileges to revert
and block the changes and to avoid Joerg using his DAM privileges to
blacklist anyone who participates in the queue from joining Debian in
future.
I neither believe that this degree
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:36:46 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
(ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve
it. In fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for
it.
This seems like an issue for educating sponsors who are
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:36:46 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
(ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve
it. In fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for
it.
This seems
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:19:42AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think the idea could be implemented, with
better unification with the NM process, [...]
No doubt it could. I think that would be a bad thing, personally.
The NM process is broken. The ideas for fixing the NM process are
directly
26 matches
Mail list logo
