On Thursday, February 17, 2011 06:33:35 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: > On 2/17/2011 4:59 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Thursday, February 17, 2011 05:20:07 pm John Arbash Meinel wrote: > >> On 2/14/2011 11:34 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > >>> We have a question in <https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/516709> about > >>> what the permissions on official package branches ought to be, and how > >>> they should be explained to the user. > >> > >> Obviously people feel very passionate about this subject, given the > >> intense discussion. </sarcasm> > > > > So far I asked what a "celebrity" is in this context and no one answered. > > Hmmm. I don't see your other message. > > As I understand it, things like ~ubuntu-branches. But I could be wrong. > I don't understand it either, that's why I ask. In the original message option 1 started, "Don't allow branches owned by non-celebrities to become the official branch for a package." Without knowing what a celebrity is in this context it's a bit difficult to commenton the proposal.
Scott K -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
