Mark Brown wrote:
Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly
run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part
of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an
achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:34:26AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly
run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part
of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was
On Friday 17 July 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly
run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part
of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an
achievable or useful goal and it does lock out
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:02:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 17 July 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators
(though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one).
That last is simply not true. If someone wants to
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 09:08:26AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
I don't think the ftpmaster group should trust another group to do
full reviews if the ftpmaster group is the one legally responsible
for the archive. Sure, it might be useful, since they might get
problems fixed before the
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
| So, would it help you FTP masters to have an explicit declaration of
| review for a NEW upload or not? If the reviewers are named, you might
| build your trust on different people (which I believe you already have
| anyhow, as it is normal to be) and so on.
I don't think
Le Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:16:35AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive and
that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual files
is unnecessary
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:17:15 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
[reviews of debian/copyright]
You know, there is one set of packages that *usually* passes NEW
pretty fast? Thats because they do something similar to that. They
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:50:17AM +0200]:
I do know that, as it was part of my NM, but I'm not sure I'd write the
same thing as an intro sent to debian-project.
Also, after one or two years in NM, you might have some new things to
say about you, and your interests in
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 07:12:55AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
This, however, sounds like a good reason for few application. You are
basically requesting people, most likely already involved in Debian
and doing that in their spare time, to have to offer 5-10 additional
hours per week, to
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 07:14:19AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
What I don't get from your text is: are you aware of the extra reviews
on a per-package basis, or you just noticed that tose packages are
usually OK and then discovered that the reasons are extra reviews?
Noticed after lotsa
This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't register at all with me.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:00:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 02:04:34AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't register at all
I'm working on a cronjob already which is able to read the data from the NM
database and will send out such mails to -project. It will rely on the fact
that
new DDs should receive an account on merkel.
Why dont you just use ldap and not rely on something unstable like the
assumption that
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I'm working on a cronjob already which is able to read the data from the NM
database and will send out such mails to -project. It will rely on the fact
that
new DDs should receive an account on merkel.
Why dont you just use ldap and not rely on something unstable like
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:28:04AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive
and that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual
files is unnecessary if
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Also, after one or two years in NM, you might have some new things to
say about you, and your interests in Debian might change, so an updated
introduction would be interesting, indeed.
The NM process should not take two years. If it does, there is something clearly
going
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Ahh... the old dear bureaucracy!
It is not my task, so go away and never come back ;-)
Is it so difficult that a cronjob will call two scripts and merge the
results
in a single mail?
yes.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux
Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk (25/06/2009):
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely
a useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their
satisfaction in other ways as appropriate, as long
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernd Zeimetz rašė:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Also, after one or two years in NM, you might have some new things to
say about you, and your interests in Debian might change, so an updated
introduction would be interesting, indeed.
The NM process
Kęstutis Biliūnas wrote:
And why you still leave those losers, who during the 2...3 years, failed
to become a DD? Rather, they only cause damage to Debian. All of them
should be removed from the MN queue. Only problem in that the need for
each of them to explain the reasons why he is rejected.
Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
checking the copyright file.
It is my assumption that this is the part of NEW that is the most time
consuming
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Kęstutis Biliūnas wrote:
Say the truth to each loser would be more honestly, I think.
One such unfortunate,
So you think you are a loser? I don't think so. What I know from your AM is that
your progress towards becoming DD and knowing all the things a DD needs to
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Julien BLACHE wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
Hi,
I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
project
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:47:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Debian has never been sued for distributing software it didn't have the
right to distribute in its archive (despite having distributed such
software in the past), and you are afraid of allowing DDs to download
the content of the
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Or, more importantly, an actual consistent policy (with rationale) from
the ftpmasters to say what they require.
I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
enforce project consensus provided that it doesn't
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive
and that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual
files is unnecessary if you have all of the licenses accounted for
(and potentially copyright
On 2009-06-25, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Cf. 87ofiygrkx@tacitus.systems for the explanation of how NEW got the
way it is (with rationale), as well as
20010909160205.b8...@azure.humbug.org.au on debian-private (9 Sep 2001)
and the debian-private list archives for July 2001 for
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're interested,
that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not going to ask our
AMs to do such
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:23:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The second type, the one I believe Frans is referring to, is sent
manually. It takes a lot of work and effort to create it (looking up
the required information, copying and pasting
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:23:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at
least send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been
accepted in the project during the past x months?
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:23:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
And how do you know that the due diligence Debian shows in seeking
to avoid distribution of software in violation of copyright isn't
the *reason* that Debian has avoided being sued?
We don't know, but it's guesswork in both
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
this mail to congratulate them?)
I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -project,
Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're interested,
that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not going to ask
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
this mail to congratulate them?)
I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:00:59PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
Hi,
I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
project during the past x months?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
In the former case FTP masters are wasting their time, in the latter
case their role is indeed useful to defend our mirror tenants, but
then copyright reviews must be *intensified*.
Have we ever asked SPI lawyers about who is
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I'd include their short biography (a few lines) that is sent to -newmaint.
The whole point of this exercise is that the short biography cannot be
automated, so it takes too much time from FD to
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin
jackyf.de...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
used to be sent out periodically
To cut this discussion short, I hereby volunteer to send out the New
Maintainer overviews. I'll probably rename them to New Debian
Developer to
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
In the former case FTP masters are wasting their time, in the latter
case their role is indeed useful to defend our mirror tenants, but
then copyright reviews must be *intensified*.
I would prefer a more real-time mirroring of
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
New maintainers usually write info about themselves during a first part of
working with AM, and this info is also included in the AM report.
Yeah, but that might be outdated by the time they actually become
developers; when I
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:58:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
I've been advocating people too early (i.e, I've advocated people so
that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I
On 25/06/09 at 12:29 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:58:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
I've been advocating people too early (i.e, I've advocated people so
that
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
The NM process should neither be pain for the NM nor for the AM. If it is I'm
happy to hear the facts why it is pain, instead of useless babbling.
I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
templated
On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
The NM process should neither be pain for the NM nor for the AM. If it is
I'm
happy to hear the facts why it is pain, instead of useless babbling.
I stopped being an AM largely as a
On Tue Jun 23 11:30, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, to verify
that the applicant has some knowledge about different aspects of Debian
packaging. Then the AM would
On 25/06/09 at 17:45 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a DD by the end of the NM
process (i.e a year and a half
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:11 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 25/06/09 at 17:45 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@cateee.net writes:
Is it so difficult that a cronjob will call two scripts and merge the
results in a single mail?
I think it would be inappropriate to send public notices about retiring
maintainers without their explicit permission. In some cases, they may
be
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was shooting
enormous reams of paperwork at applicants which I didn't really felt
helped with
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result
(you are happy
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:36:15PM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
in other ways as
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was shooting enormous
I didn't think that using the templates was
I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
useful tool.
Correct, noone is forced to use the templates. There are some questions
you *must* have, but thats a handful. All the rest is up to the AM.
I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction in other
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
of people only. Some dropped out due to lack of knowledge, most to lack
of time. As of now
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Nothing at all blocks you from asking for reviews from other
maintainers. Do it, PLEASE DO IT. The more people that do it, the
less the rejects we have to do in NEW, the less the size of NEW. You
do not need to redefine anything
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11790 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
rare situations. That never seemed like a difficult wait to me.
Ack. Same for adding debug packages and similar things like soname bumps.
Those are all
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
checking the copyright file.
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The
Le Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:17:15PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
I was wondering whether we could, for instance, sign with different
keys a NEW upload to notify FTP masters about the number of people
which reviewed a given package to give you hints (of course
according to the
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 02:04:34AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
checking the copyright file.
He's right that binary NEW is not the
This, however, sounds like a good reason for few application. You are
basically requesting people, most likely already involved in Debian
and doing that in their spare time, to have to offer 5-10 additional
hours per week, to know as much programming languages as possible, and
(IIRC) to know
What I don't get from your text is: are you aware of the extra reviews
on a per-package basis, or you just noticed that tose packages are
usually OK and then discovered that the reasons are extra reviews?
Noticed after lotsa uploads. The reasons I guess from the little i know
about the group.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:24:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:13:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
But all of that said, it still needs trusted people to review the
packages, which is where we've traditionally started to have scaling
problems.
This is
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 18:26:43 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Imagine a process where we only require 5 recommendation emails from
existing DDs. First, it is obvious that different requirements would
apply to those recommendations, than to the current advocate emails:
since the applicant
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Julien Cristau wrote:
(also, on the topic of people who are ready when they enter NM go
through it fast,
https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=samuel.thibault%40ens-lyon.org
)
Oh, I had missed that Samuel had become a DD. That's great. Congrats.
/me wonders
On 24/06/09 at 11:45 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
(also, on the topic of people who are ready when they enter NM go
through it fast,
https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=samuel.thibault%40ens-lyon.org)
Describing people like Samuel Thibault or Chris Lamb as people who are
ready when they
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Describing people like Samuel Thibault or Chris Lamb as people who are
ready when they enter NM, and therefore implying that if you take more
than 6 months, it's because you were not ready, is just insulting for
all the other applicants who were
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
NM process:
- the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates,
...
This *might*
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
That I can definitely agree is a concern, and it would be very nice to
figure out a way to find project consensus on what should and
shouldn't go into the debian/copyright file.
Or, more importantly, an actual consistent policy (with rationale) from
the
Hello,
Just to confirm a few things.
Frans wrote:
Your link clearly shows that Samuel's focus has never been on package
maintenance, so maybe he's never felt the need to be a DD, or at least
did not see it as a priority.
That is very true. I actually told my AM that what I really appreciate
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009):
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but
AFAICT there might be something wrong there, since Samuel wasn't
mentioned
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:21:48PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009):
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009):
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs
that used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”),
but AFAICT there might be
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009):
/me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
used to be sent out periodically
They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but
AFAICT there might be something wrong there,
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The second type, the one I believe Frans is referring to, is sent
manually. It takes a lot of work and effort to create it (looking up
the required information, copying and pasting the relevant sections
from the relevant mails, doing some
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Frans Popelen...@planet.nl wrote:
OK, but that's not the one I meant. We also had one with the new DD's
intro of themselves that was sent to d-project [1]. The last one I can
find quickly is from early 2007 [2].
I always found it very useful as most DDs don't
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39:20PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Chris Lamb and Samuel Thibault both applied very late. Much too late.
Before they applied, several people have been wondering why they
weren't DDs yet. I'm not sure why they didn't apply earlier, but the
fact that our NM process
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
Hi,
I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
project during the past x months?
I think the AM could provide a summary for that mail, after all, the
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
That I can definitely agree is a concern, and it would be very nice
to figure out a way to find project consensus on what should and
shouldn't go into the debian/copyright file.
Or, more importantly, an
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:45:35PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
OK, but that's not the one I meant. We also had one with the new DD's
intro of themselves that was sent to d-project [1]. The last one I can
find quickly is from early 2007 [2].
I always found it very useful as most DDs don't follow
On 11790 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Then NEW. Nothing out of the ordinary here: NEW delays are often raised
on -devel@ (see [1] for example), and it's apparently considered normal
to wait 2 or more weeks before one's package gets reviewed. Since this
often blocks other works, it is a
Julien BLACHE wrote:
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote:
Hi,
I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
project during the past x months?
I think the AM could provide a summary for
On 11790 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
rare situations. That never seemed like a difficult wait to me.
Ack. Same for adding debug packages and similar things like soname bumps.
Those are all simple additions of binary
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
Same thing applies for FD and AMs btw. Lucas indeed spent a few hours on doing
the regular FD tasks, but went away then. If you're
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (24/06/2009):
I do follow d-newmaint, but I don't think the reports that are sent
there actually include the names of new maintainers.
If you don't think, then check?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2009/04/msg00054.html
Excerpt:
| Weekly Summary
On 24/06/09 at 22:53 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
Same thing applies for FD and AMs btw. Lucas indeed spent a few hours on doing
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:07:13PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (24/06/2009):
I do follow d-newmaint, but I don't think the reports that are sent
there actually include the names of new maintainers.
If you don't think, then check?
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't register at all with me.
Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
congratulating new
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't register at all with me.
Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
We *happily* accept everyone as trainee that does not get a NO from the
existing team[1] and let them do trainee work. Have 5 til 10 hours a
week? Can deal with the points written down in [2]? Mail us.
Hi Joerg,
You never
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
enforce project consensus provided that it doesn't strike them as
legally dangerous or otherwise seriously problematic. I would rather
have a consensus than a
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
For instance, it was unclear in the DEP5 discussion if we only need to
list the license, or if we have to indicate which files they were
found in (as it is done in the example provided on the latest
published guildeline, see the URL below). Can we have
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
