On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 18:40 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson writes:
>
> AW> Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the
> AW> primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source
> AW> for the
> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
ZJ> Indeed. I changed the status. (I feels a bit presumptuous to tell
ZJ> the FPC when exactly they have to discuss something, but if it's
ZJ> that's what it takes, then OK.)
trac unfortunately doesn't have any facility for
> "AW" == Adam Williamson writes:
AW> Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the
AW> primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source
AW> for the spec file to be some external SCM, and finds it a problem
AW> when someone
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 03:41:52PM +, Mat Booth wrote:
> Ticket is still has "need info" status -- if the info is provided, the
> status should be set to "discuss at next meeting"
Indeed. I changed the status. (I feels a bit presumptuous to tell the
FPC when exactly they have to discuss
On 14 February 2017 at 02:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 09:44:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the
> > primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source
>
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 09:44:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the
> primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source
> for the spec file to be some external SCM, and finds it a problem when
> someone (e.g. a
Hi folks! So I got bitten again today by the situation where the
primary contact for a given package considers the 'canonical' source
for the spec file to be some external SCM, and finds it a problem when
someone (e.g. a provenpackager like me...) changes the package directly
in dist-git.
This is