Hello,
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022, Didier Raboud wrote:
> (Sorry for the delay in getting back to that thread. #life)
Me even worse ;-)
> Specifically, this is something I'd like to discuss in more extensive terms.
> I
> think I'm postulating that Debian would be in a better place with a "Debian
>
Hello,
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
> To this end we are currently preparing a survey. We expect to use
> surveys.debian.net (Limesurvey) to generate private links that can be sent
> to each Debian developer. (This is so that only Debian developers can fill
> out the survey.)
Hello,
I have received some private feedback that a few questions were heavily
biased towards technical roles. That bias is certainly real as this is where
I come from and the kind of work that I'd like to fund with Freexian is
mostly technical.
That said the survey would certainly be more
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
> You can find a draft of the survey here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/misc-drafts/-/blob/master/2022-dd-survey/survey-content.md
FTR, thanks to the feedback of Ulrike Uhlig, I merged some changes
compared to the initial version that was
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Three folks on -vote recently responded to a GR proposal that we—as a
> group—have more important things to do, yet no one articulated what
> those things were. With this message, I hope to collect your ideas.
[...]
> Please feel free to respond
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, Phil Morrell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 10:14:50PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > We could have a "debian/spending-ideas" if you want so that all DD have
> > write access by default. We could restrict access to issues for project
> &
Hi,
On Sun, 04 Apr 2021, Phil Morrell wrote:
> Please keep in mind that I'm proposing this list purely as a practical
> experiment, it does nothing that can't already be done elsewhere, and if
> it doesn't work out after say 6 months, then so be it. All I'm looking
> for is an indication that it
Hi,
On Fri, 02 Apr 2021, Phil Morrell wrote:
> I've thought about what such a system could look like, perhaps signed
> commits to a salsa project or a simple site like mentors. I came to the
> conclusion that there's already a working system in place for counting
> DD support of suggestions.
Hello,
as you probably know, my company — Freexian — has been running the
commercial side of the Debian LTS project, collecting money from sponsors
and dispatching it to contributors handling the security updates. This is
working pretty well by now and the amount of funding is sufficient to
cover
Hello Antonio,
nice initiative !
On Thu, 21 May 2020, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> For services, my starting point is https://wiki.debian.org/Services For
> tools, I currently have a list of the ones I usually contribute to, but
> can add more.
>
> Not the part where I need your help. I'm looking
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hell, there's a strong confirmation bias here too - how many
> potentially great future developers have we lost at a very early stage
> because our email-centric workflow didn't appeal to them initially?
We already lost existing Debian developers due
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> > That is, the team would rule on individual cases, rather than issuing
> > "lists of things not to do". IMHO that pretty much would make it a
> > court with the power to judge project members. And I'm
Hi,
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> > extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
>
> As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
> unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time
On Wed, 03 Jul 2019, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:33:25PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > Being german, I think that Debian should honor discriminated minorities,
>
> Being a discriminated against minority, I think Debian should *not*.
And since Debian is do-ocracy,
Hi,
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Thank you for illustrating so well why Daniel's words were spot on. Your
> response is exactly why censorship must not be tolerated in Debian.
Such a message is not constructive and actually hurts any further
discussion. First of all, while it may
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This implies to me that, at the least, "anti-harassment" is the wrong
> > name for a team that deals with this.
>
> That's certainly true. I thought of these ideas:
What about def...@debian.org ?
You write to them when you are about to explode and
Hi,
On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Paul Wise wrote:
> I discussed this a bit more with Stéphane Blondon offlist and we came
> up with this proposal for the criteria and how to list derivatives.
>
> We would welcome some feedback on these new criteria.
I don't have anything to add. It looks good to me
On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, Guillem Jover wrote:
> It is not only not obviously right to me, instead it seems obvious
> it carries a set of different problems with it. I feel this carries
> so many assumptions of how the proposers feel about how *they* work
> or might like to work and ignores how
On Fri, 02 Dec 2016, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I'm not saying people like you dont exist, nor that your reasoning aint
> sensible. I've just said some people take motivation from being listed
> as maintainer.
We could get rid of "Maintainer" in debian/control and still display
on tracker.debian.org
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Christian Rohmann wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 10:23 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> * Intensive checks (even via rsync) regarding mirror consistency
> > That's good too but the downside is that the mirrors must
> > offer rsync service, either public or
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Christian Rohmann wrote:
> It does wonderful things (http://mirrorbrain.org/features/):
Nice to see some much support but I would like to point out that not
everything is perfect either...
> * Load-Balance by GeoIP / AS matching (traffic stays very local)
That's
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> So, it appears as if currently nobody has time or the energy to take
> care of httpredir.debian.org properly.
>
> I suggest we shut down the service for now. If, at some future point,
> somebody wants to maintain again we can always start it up
On Tue, 01 Dec 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Could Debian as a project sign up ? Conservancy is a 503(c), like
> SPI, so perhaps we in Debian could commit a modest regular funding
> stream to Conservancy.
+1
We have troubles finding good use of our money. This one should not
cause any problem to
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, Brian Gupta wrote:
As someone who's pretty heavily involved in fundraising for Debian, I'd like
to
express my support for adding Paypal to the list of official methods to donate
to Debian.
And if I can add a data point, PayPal is already mentioned on the donation
page
Package: lists.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
with the adoption of the code of conduct, more and more people started
to respond to persons who do not follow its spirit, to let them know
that the message was inappropriate in one way or another. Some do it
publicly and other do it privately.
Hi Solveig,
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Solveig wrote:
I can write specific amendments, if somebody is willing to sponsor them :)
Please do. I tend to agree with what Steve said. It doesn't hurt to have a
list of don't but this should not replace the inspirational part of the
CoC.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The danger of having a list of do nots is that people will do
something which is not on the list, and then point to it and say see,
it's allowed by the code of conduct when pointed out that they're being
a dick.
It's quite common to have an short
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
- Wrap your lines at 80 characters or less for ordinary discussion. Lines
longer than 80 characters are acceptable for computer-generated output
(e.g., ls -l).
- Do not send automated out-of-office or vacation messages.
- Do not send test
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
It can increase security because it can make operations more
convenient at the same level of security, and because people trade off
convenience for security.
For example, it would be possible to have one key for email encryption
and a different (more
Hi,
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Ingo Jürgensmann wrote:
Unfortunately I have a problem with the renaming of my pet service
Buildd.Net on https://wiki.debian.org/Services. I added my service as
BuilddNet and it got renamed to UnofficialBuilddNet. Although it's
true that it's an unofficial service, I
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Ingo Jürgensmann wrote:
In fact it doesn't duplicate an existing service. Its focus is
different than the buildd.d.o site.
The site says “These pages are intended to show additional information to
http://buildd.debian.org or more exactly it is basically the same
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
2) the alternative is that they give up on the idea, or host it
themselves, which makes it harder to work collaboratively on the
service, and results in services that have a single maintainer (or
none, in the end).
How does having a
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- [bgupta] work with SPI to enable donations via paypal
Note that Debian France has planned to setup that for the Debian project.
It would be a small change on this page:
https://france.debian.net/galette/plugins/galette-plugin-paypal/paypal_form.php
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
Cyril Brulebois writes (Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation):
Have you seen some mistakes that would help us (or at least me)
understand which problems you're {thinking of,anticipating}?
I think the biggest problem isn't that the policy
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
This is all very well but I think de jure they aren't a delegated team,
and the distinction is defined in the constitution. This is not
trivially bypassable, because a delegated team is one who
Hi,
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I've given some thought to this myself, and came up with the following
ideas. Some of them are probably really bad ideas, but let's try to
brainstorm a bit:
I don't find them bad. At least from the POV of view of a DD and of a
service
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:12:12AM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
I didn't really understand your proposal, it was missing the What?
section. What do you intend to change apart from the description of
the debian-companies list?
It is not just the
Hi,
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, LaMont Jones wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 11:33:39AM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
mergechanges is responsible for the differences you're seeing:
dpkg-source is run (yes, on an ubuntu system), and then binaries are built
on a system that is running sid, both amd64
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013, Paul Wise wrote:
The source package control files and some of their derivatives are
currently
used to document the URL of the home page of the work that is packaged
(upstream). However, this approach is hard to extend to other
information
describing
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012, Enrico Zini wrote:
I love how this is increasing in awesomeness as it is decreasing in
size.
Indeed.
I feel like suggesting two minor patches, labor limae if anything:
s/contributions to Debian/contributions/
s/expertise in other areas/expertise in other areas,/
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
If is proposed to GR as it is written now, I will most probably vote
against it too. I thought the diversity statement was to let everybody
know they were welcome to work in the project, not that they have to
think in certain way nor we will have yet
Hi Jörg,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Compared to my last post about this meeting, we did rework our agenda a
little bit, so it currently reads like the stuff I paste below. We
guarantee nothing from it, but we try to at least have a few short words
about each. Well, a report
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
multi-arch implementation, see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/02/msg00504.html
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:44:46PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Compared to my last post about this meeting, we
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
It's not begging in a sense that someone IS doing some work. It's more
like use this thing that I produced, and if you want, you can reward
me with a few cents. There simply is nothing distasteful about that.
In fact, I find it courageous,
Hi,
(I'm hert...@d.o and not b...@d.o)
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
What Can I Post On Planet?
[...]
- Be very careful including material from external sites (ie, not your
own blog/domain). The occasional picture from elsewhere is fine, but
anything that can be (or is)
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'm not particularly happy with the 'flattr this' buttons either. My
main problem is that I find quite difficult to avoid interpreting them
as DMUP violations, specifically about DMUP point don't use Debian
Facilities for private financial
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
My next question for you (assuming you accept that a discussion on this
list is enough to decide on this matter---I personally do) is whether
you find that my summary of this thread, given in my former post, is
fair or not.
I don't know on
Hi,
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010, Holger Levsen wrote:
since a while, we see unsolicted commercial links and images on planet,
mostly
about flattr.
So it's now clear that this thread is only about flattr buttons. Quite a few
people explained that they are (at varying level) annoyed by them. I would
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
For some value of any. Planet has a big audience, articles are seen by
more than 3 persons so it's difficult to speak for them.
How do you get that number?
Feedburner statistics. But I was wrong, it's not that many. That numbers
includes also
Hi,
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
Where I personally draw the line is that I'm fairly comfortable with
Debian-involved people advertising their own services on Planet Debian:
their own companies, their own consulting services, their own posts, and
so forth. I would start getting
Hi,
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
You should be. *IMO* your posts are VERY annoying with the support my
work, give me money money money below them, sometimes very much looking
to be written just to spread another round of flattr links.
Might not be the intention, but feels like it
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Henri Le Foll wrote:
I have seen that Raphael Hertzog has written a blog entrie about conffile
so I have created http://wiki.debian.org/Training
This article is more oriented towards users than towards contributors. But
I have other articles that are interesting
Hi Joerg,
thanks for those minutes, they were very interesting. I like that you're
working on integrating more stuff on the main archive. It's definitely
better than to have many separate archives. I do hope backports will be
a suite on the main archive at some point.
I have one comment and a
Hi,
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010, Andreas Tille wrote:
I admit that I personally can not spend the (spare) time which is needed
to work on or even lead a project like debian-installer but I would like
to raise the awareness of people here by showing the figure above that
especially in freeze time a
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Steffen Möller wrote:
there is a new advent on the Internet horizon which is the social
micropayment. Regular web users pay in some money and distribute that
with respect to their clicks in the web. I feel that Debian should
somehow participate with that, i.e. we
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On 06/07/10 10:09, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
some stuff about Manuel not being ready for DD status
AFAICT, none of this justifies silently removing someone from the NM
database.
I can't speak for the NM team, but if he was asked to go through DM
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:45:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Now I would like to stop dealing with those requests and thus I would like
a team of people to replace me.
Do you have a way to know what percentage of non-DDs who can commit
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:45:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Now I would like to stop dealing with those requests and thus I would like
a team of people to replace me.
Do you have a way to know what percentage of non-DDs who can commit
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Christoph Berg wrote:
Why not automatically include all DMs in the collab-maint group?
No objection from me. But I don't know how to map DM to alioth accounts.
And to drive the idea further, what about a public-maint group that
everyone with an alioth account can commit
Hello,
ever since I created the Alioth collab-maint project [1], I have been adding
non-developers to the project so that they can work together with
other DD (sponsors) on a common VCS. 359 requests have been approved since
2005, it currently amounts to 5 to 20 requests every month. The
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
Are there volunteers for the task?
I would be willing to volunteer as part of a team. I work with the
debian-perl team and find that group maintenance and co-operation makes
things function quite smoothly. I would like to mention I am not a DD
Hi,
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Xavier Oswald wrote:
Is there an existing team that could take this responsibility? [2]
Are there volunteers for the task?
Why a team ? People volunteers registered as Admin could do the needed job
right ?
I asked for a team because it would not be unreasonable
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
This is IMNSHO a serious violation and breach of privacy. It doesn't
IMO it's not. The PTS is like launchpad but for Debian and there you can
see who is subscribed to each package and to each bug:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpkg
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, David Paleino wrote:
while hacking on wicd, I looked at the various DHCP clients we have in
Debian. I believe that pump could be removed from our archives, but I'm
sending this mail in case anyone really needs it -- in this case, we keep it
and I'll just remove support
Hi
(quoting almost everything on purpose)
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Tom Feiner wrote:
stackoverflow.com, which is a website featuring questions and answers on
a wide range of topics in computer programming, has just offered [1]
free advertising for open source projects wanting to advertise
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Martin Wuertele wrote:
If you're talking about the Ubuntu release team that's up to them. If
you talk about the Debian release team then I don't think so. A
proposale is a proposal not a policy.
I don't get your point. How do you go from a proposed freeze date
to a
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Sure, if most DDs have just took that mail as a proposal that they can
safely ignore, the release team should probably be more precise, but I
doubt the substance will be anything else than what we have now. (I also
duly notice that the release
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
So, there was a long discussion here after Debconf about the merits or
lack thereof of a freeze date at the end of this year for a squeeze
release early next year. My general feeling of the discussion was that
there was a fair bit of opposition to
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
critical bugs. That gave to nice aphorisms like release when
ready, but did not really cater to timeliness of the releases.
We are speaking of the freeze date, not the release date.
other way: Where timeliness trumps the quality. We also have
(Put petter on CC, he's probably interested by the patch below)
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Alexander Wirt wrote:
Luk Claes schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
*snip*
Why would file-rc not work properly with dependency based booting?
you know what file-rc is doing? You have a configfile where
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt h...@ftwca.de writes:
How is calling update-rc.d making our maintainer scripts fragile?
It's the things that update-rc.d doesn't support directly that are a
problem, like moving
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
the time being.
Until what? Missing boot-time dependencies were the only problem that had
to be adressed to fix boot sequence ordering.
Sure administrators will have to learn
(unexpected) initialization done by other scripts, i.e. numbers
were wrong and could not be easily fixed. And there's nothing magic in the
dependency based system.
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:54:06AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
* Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au [090818 11:28]:
Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when
challenging those logical fallacies?
I think succinct terms help not at all here.
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
Also, how about the following addition to the next edition of DeveloperNews?
=== debian-devel and ITPs ===
At DebConf9 there was a discussion about making the debian-devel list
more useful. Towards that end, here is a quick reminder of the
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
In fact, I would prefer if Ubuntu had to change _their_ scheduled to
accomodate us, if they want to have the advantage of being in sync
with us. It's _their_ advantage after all, not ours.
I don't mind who changes the date for the other but I really don't
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37:46AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
What we're speaking of is synergy between both distributions. You know the
it's the principle behind “the combination of both is worth more that the
sum of individual parts”.
What kind
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote:
So let's just freeze late in the early/middle spring of 2010 this time and
aim
for Dec 2011 freeze next time. If you disagree with that, please enlighten me
why Debian needs to rush _this time_. If synchronization is so badly wanted
for the
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
Both the Etch and Lenny releases did clearly show this, and the success of
both releases (Etch more than Lenny IMO) is largely thanks to flexible
starts of the incremental freeze stages.
The staged freeze has been a major pain for anyone working on the
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Sandro Tosi wrote:
bullshit! we are trading quality for what?
Please don't be so aggressive and leave some time to RM to respond to your
comments before posting more mails
Or there's something else behind the curtains that it's not being said
(consciously), like
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
Manoj seems to be emitting a great deal more typos to Debian forums in
recent years. Perhaps we should pool together donations for a better
keyboard for him?
Or he should post less and take the time to review what he
writes... (including the pass where
[ Moving to -project ]
Hi,
context: someone proposed a scoring system like this:
x (= 10?) Important bugs are RC critical
y (= 25?) Normal bugs are RC critical
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 02:41:46PM +0100, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
Hmmm... I
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed;
Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.
The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Anyway 2Q is too much in my opinion. Q would be much more reasonable.
See my reply to Bernd why I think its not.
It seems like most people who responded preferred Q up to now. It might
end up as an amendment otherwise. :)
It would be also be good
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi,
I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General
Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000
Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea,
its most probably not worth it
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:35:14AM +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
* Vocal minority dominates silent majority by contributing a
disproportionate amount of list traffic, [...]
Note that voting can have a similar drawback -- in that if you've got
enough
Hello,
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Jurij Smakov wrote:
and so on. The way I would like to see this idea developing is that it
starts as an unofficial project, with very simple rules (like, you
can vote once for each message ID), which simply collects the data
and makes it publicly available in
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[ re-ordering the quoted text, anticipating your reply to my post ]
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 04:35:43PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The goal is not (necessarily to) filter the messages that we want to
see or not, the goal is to give feedback
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Oct 27 20:28, Holger Levsen wrote:
Her basic idea is, that in addictive games the first levels of success are
easy to achieve and then it gets harder, but only so slowly so that people
dont loose motivation. She also manages very well to
Hi,
thanks for your comment. For reference, people might not have noticed but
my initial mail was not only a reply to liw's mail but a real alternative
proposal. BTW, I added some further explanations on my blog:
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2008/10/27/debian-membership-reform/
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008,
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- this process might be too heavy with fine-grained privileges as it would
require the intervention of many DD each time we have to grant a right
(when trusting the decision of 2 members with special rights would be
enough).
That's why I
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 27/10/08 at 16:40 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- this process might be too heavy with fine-grained privileges as it
would
require the intervention of many DD each time we have to grant
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I think we should go in the opposite direction: massively simplify
the whole membership thing.
I tend to agree on the description of the situation but I would also add
that we effectively have a trust problem within the project and that any
reform to
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I need information where
debbugs
Don responded, it moved to bzr: http://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Debbugs
debian-openoffice
$ apt-cache showsrc openoffice.org | grep Vcs
Vcs-Bzr:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] (05/10/2008):
http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?root=debian-doc
This link is wrong. DDP uses SVN nowadays.
Question is: why
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/?root=debian-doc
This link is wrong. DDP uses SVN nowadays.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--
To
I was frightened by your message until I realized that it was not your
message but one of Sven… please don't forward messages that you don't
endorse (in particular when it contains wrong claims).
debian-multimedia.org is not maintained by debian, it is for patent
encumbered stuff, liable of a
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, David Paleino wrote:
The separation between debian.org and non-free.org is IMHO auspicable. And,
regarding the concern of RMS about publicizing this location... well, we do
*NOT* mention debian-multimedia.org anywhere, do we? Still, lots of people use
that.
If we create
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
The past weeks I had several encounters with the situation that a maintainer
completely overlooked and NMU and uploaded a newer version without
acknowledging the previous NMU, thereby reintroducing the problem the NMU
addressed. This happened to
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
But perhaps we need another mechanism to signal this. Consecutive uploads to
the same distribution should not cause previously present version entries to
disappear from the changelog. Maybe the archive can reject an upload that
misses a changelog
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
