(Cc += [email protected]) On 20/02/14 at 00:14 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 06:56:26 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 19/02/14 at 09:42 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > > > > Ralf, QA folks, does that seem reasonable? > > > > > > Seems reasonable to me. > > > > OTOH, we are not quite good at maintaining stuff under qa.d.o. Maybe it > > would be better to setup a separate edos.d.o service? > > > I don't really see what difference that would make to be honest. Care > to elaborate?
If you ask DSA, I'm quite sure that they will tell that services under qa.debian.org are difficult to deal with, because there are numerous different people knowing about different sub-services, and almost no coordination between them. Attempts to upgrade quantz, for example, usually ends up with DSA deciding "ok, since nobody answered, let's just do it, and we will see what happens." So, it might be better to have a separate service, with a known maintainer. Now, that's my perception. If DSA is fine with adding another service under qa.d.o, I personally don't have anything against it. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
