Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: [all candidates] on distribution-wide changes and
scalability):
On 14/03/13 at 17:55 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
- Debian should decide to use a single VCS (say, Git), for all packages,
uniform repository structure and work-flow, and give by default
read
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
Folklore goes that performing distribution-wide changes in Debian is
hard and time-consuming, due to a couple of reasons: (1) the time needed
to make a decision that affects the whole archive (this is related to
our flat structure, which has many
Op zaterdag 16 maart 2013 17:39:56 schreef Moray Allan:
On 2013-03-16 12:13, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The current NMU guidelines[1] discourage fixing cosmetic issues or
changing the packaging style in an NMU. The reason for that is that
such changes are often a matter of taste (though there
On 17/03/13 at 15:03 +0300, Moray Allan wrote:
Implementing dh(1) or source format 3, notwithstanding their
advantages for
DD's, is successful if the generated binary packages are the same
as before.
Should we really focus more effort on increasing the existing
convergence?
No, I don't
On 2013-03-17 16:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Actually, I disagree that we should not focus more effort on
increasing
the existing convergence.
I was replying as part of a discussion of using NMUs to increase
convergence, not on whether convergence is good in general.
So despite your I
On 17/03/13 at 16:34 +0300, Moray Allan wrote:
On 2013-03-17 16:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Actually, I disagree that we should not focus more effort on
increasing
the existing convergence.
I was replying as part of a discussion of using NMUs to increase
convergence, not on whether
Hi,
On 15/03/13 at 19:41 +0300, Moray Allan wrote:
In my platform I suggested that we might make distribution-wide
changes quicker by more vocally authorising NMUs to help with
changeovers.
The current NMU guidelines[1] discourage fixing cosmetic issues or
changing the packaging style in an
On 2013-03-16 12:13, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The current NMU guidelines[1] discourage fixing cosmetic issues or
changing the packaging style in an NMU. The reason for that is that
such changes are often a matter of taste (though there are
exceptions,
such as the standardization of
On 2013-03-14 19:55, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
This inertia folklore is surely supported by past history of the
time
it took us to deploy specific changes in large sets of packages. But
on
the other hand, in the last 5 to 10 years we have massively improved
our
ability to decide and deploy
Folklore goes that performing distribution-wide changes in Debian is
hard and time-consuming, due to a couple of reasons: (1) the time needed
to make a decision that affects the whole archive (this is related to
our flat structure, which has many benefits, but surely not that of
providing a clear
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 05:55:33PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
- on the judgement spectrum between there is no inertia in Debian and
that's good and there is a lot of inertia in Debian and that's bad,
where would you put yourself?
Is this a trick question? Where is there is a lot of
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:05:14AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Is this a trick question? Where is there is a lot of inertia in Debian and
that's good on this spectrum? ;-)
Maybe it's a trick question, maybe not :-) But if the spectrum is too
shallow, by all means add to it as many dimensions
On 14/03/13 at 17:55 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Folklore goes that performing distribution-wide changes in Debian is
hard and time-consuming, due to a couple of reasons: (1) the time needed
to make a decision that affects the whole archive (this is related to
our flat structure, which
13 matches
Mail list logo
