[Why to cc on policy? Cut]
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:32:30AM +0100, Bluefuture wrote:
If people don't care as much about this as you think they should,
perhaps it would be a good idea to try explaining why they *should*
care, instead of just lamenting their lack of a telepathic
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:49:47AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
[Why to cc on policy? Cut]
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:32:30AM +0100, Bluefuture wrote:
If people don't care as much about this as you think they should,
perhaps it would be a good idea to try explaining why they *should*
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
[snip]
I had try to randomly submit wishlist bugs for 6 packages to bts with
the tag patch pointing to the dehs site or attaching the watch file to
the bug.
Almost all of this bug was closed and the watch file was check (in some
cases fixed) and inserted
su, 2005-03-06 kello 19:28 +0100, Thiemo Seufer kirjoitti:
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Do *not* file 6229 bugs about the same subject. Never.
Why not? As wishlist bugs with patch this seems sensible to me.
Denial of service attacks on the bug tracking system, on mailing lists,
mail
Re: Thiemo Seufer in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do *not* file 6229 bugs about the same subject. Never.
Why not? As wishlist bugs with patch this seems sensible to me.
I assume that you will hand-check the patches in those 6229 bug
reports that the watch files actually do the right thing before you
Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Thiemo Seufer in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do *not* file 6229 bugs about the same subject. Never.
Why not? As wishlist bugs with patch this seems sensible to me.
I assume that you will hand-check the patches in those 6229 bug
reports that the watch files actually do
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2005-03-06 kello 19:28 +0100, Thiemo Seufer kirjoitti:
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Do *not* file 6229 bugs about the same subject. Never.
Why not? As wishlist bugs with patch this seems sensible to me.
Denial of service attacks on the bug tracking system,
su, 2005-03-06 kello 20:11 +0100, Thiemo Seufer kirjoitti:
Since preparation of the accompanying patches would take some time,
it is unlikely to cause denial of service or disruption.
If they are sent at a slow pace, then the disruption is less, it is
true. It is still detrimental to have
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 06:44:37PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:49:47AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:32:30AM +0100, Bluefuture wrote:
I'm not a debian developer, so i could not post on dda mailing list. I
had opened many
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Denial of service attacks on the bug tracking system, on mailing lists,
mail servers, and maintainers is unappreciated. 6229 bug reports would
result in all sorts of unnecessary and unwanted load on all sorts of
systems and people. It is because of
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
su, 2005-03-06 kello 20:11 +0100, Thiemo Seufer kirjoitti:
Since preparation of the accompanying patches would take some time,
it is unlikely to cause denial of service or disruption.
If they are sent at a slow pace, then the disruption is less, it is
true. It is
su, 2005-03-06 kello 21:09 +0100, Thiemo Seufer kirjoitti:
We don't talk about automated bug filing here.
We're talking about filing over 6000 bugs for watch files. It may not be
automated, but it is mass-filing. It doesn't matter if it takes weeks or
months, it is still not a good idea. That is
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 03:32 +0100, Bluefuture wrote:
snip
I'm not a debian developer, so i could not post on dda mailing list. I
had opened many thread over this months on debian-qa debian-devel about
dehs issues. The only reply are:
snip
If you're not a developer and you want to post on
After another gruelling discussion on #debian-devel about the useless of
dehs and the lack of watch file (75,60% of non native debian packages
doesn't had one), I think that dehs is start to begin only my own
personal toys, so i'm thinking to stop it and to leave alioth resources
and put my
Hi Stefano,
Bluefuture wrote:
I know that there are a little bit group of people that think that the
old use of watch file could be converted in a Qa tools, but actually
i'm the only one that is trying to find a solution that could fix that
lack of watch file.
But without maintainers interest,
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Viehmann said:
Hi Stefano,
Bluefuture wrote:
I know that there are a little bit group of people that think that the
old use of watch file could be converted in a Qa tools, but actually
i'm the only one that is trying to find a solution that could fix that
Scripsit Bluefuture [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is no reason to put more work and effort on a community tool that
community itself consider useless.
The community might start considering it less useless if an
explanation of what it is supposed to be good for was actually
available. In particular,
I know that I thougt dehs per se not too useful, but the watch section
on qa.d.o has inspired me to write watch files for two of my packages.
Not much (2 out of 7), admittedly, but I think that it's fairly useful.
I think the experimental columns are overkill (as people packaging
experimental
The community might start considering it less useless if an
explanation of what it is supposed to be good for was actually
available. In particular, why should a maintainer care about watch
files if he uses something else than uscan to keep track of upstream
happenings?
From time to time, these
Scripsit Bluefuture [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If people don't care as much about this as you think they should,
perhaps it would be a good idea to try explaining why they *should*
care, instead of just lamenting their lack of a telepathic
understanding of your intentions?
This is not true.
You are
On 02/27/2005 11:15 PM, Henning Makholm wrote:
Now you have a third reply: Explain why people should care, and
someone might actually start caring.
The core idea of dehs (as I understand it) is to keep track of
differences between the current upstream and Debian package versions. In
the long run
Scripsit Lucas Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 02/27/2005 11:15 PM, Henning Makholm wrote:
Now you have a third reply: Explain why people should care, and
someone might actually start caring.
The core idea of dehs (as I understand it) is to keep track of
[snip explanation]
But why did I have to
On 02/28/2005 01:08 AM, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Lucas Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 02/27/2005 11:15 PM, Henning Makholm wrote:
Now you have a third reply: Explain why people should care, and
someone might actually start caring.
The core idea of dehs (as I understand it) is to keep track of
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:35:40AM -0300, Lucas Wall wrote:
Now that you have this information, do you think dehs could be useful?
Do others think something like dehs could be useful?
As a general tool? Maybe, but how is it better than uscan, which it
duplicates?
As a website? No, not really.
On 02/28/2005 02:02 AM, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:35:40AM -0300, Lucas Wall wrote:
Now that you have this information, do you think dehs could be useful?
Do others think something like dehs could be useful?
As a general tool? Maybe, but how is it better than uscan, which
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:54:46AM -0300, Lucas Wall wrote:
The core idea of dehs (as I understand it) is to keep track of
differences between the current upstream and Debian package versions. In
the long run dehs is intended to gather and present more information
than just the numerical
26 matches
Mail list logo
