2015-06-02 2:33 GMT+02:00 Reinhard Tartler :
>
> I don't think I have any new input to add to this discussion. The majority
> of participants seem to think that the "two uploaders rule" is not useful as
> it hinders the adoption of new packages. While, I found this a desirable
> property, I also re
Am Dienstag, den 02.06.2015, 20:23 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
> For me the team has become an umbrella for multimedia packages where we help
> each other in case its needed (RC bugs for example) in a more sensible way
> than
> mininmal diffs for an NMU.
^ this.
- Fabian
signature.asc
On 2015-05-31 08:58:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Any idea how to determine "clearly no longer maintained"? I think the
> > 2-maintainers rule was intended to provide a way to demarcate that
> > line, but it didn't fulfill its promise.
>
> Because the rule isn't enforced properly. I'd rather ar
On Jun 1, 2015 1:35 AM, "Fabian Greffrath" wrote:
> And by the current rule, would libav still qualify as being
> pkg-multimedia team-maintained?
I would say yes: Most recently, Sebastian has not only provided commits,
but even uploaded several packages to both unstable and stable-security. So
to
On Jun 1, 2015 7:11 AM, "Felipe Sateler" wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2015 at 19:36, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > IMO, if there is no need for team commitment, then there is no need
> > for the package to be under team maintenance in the first place. In
> > this case, it really doesn't matter if the packa
Hi Reinhard,
Just answering this unanswered question from the thread as I have
nothing more (worth adding) to the rest. And everyone is probably tired :-)
On 06/01/2015 12:36 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> Can I suggest that for new packages:
>>> 1. the one intending to ITP asks if the
On 31 May 2015 at 19:36, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> IMO, if there is no need for team commitment, then there is no need
> for the package to be under team maintenance in the first place. In
> this case, it really doesn't matter if the package has a dedicated
> maintainer or a team with a single upl
Am Sonntag, den 31.05.2015, 08:58 -0400 schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
> If the majority of the packages in team pkg-multimedia are effectively
> taken care of by a single person, how is that package simply not team
> maintained at all?
Not yet.
As it stands, the rule already applies to the first upl
Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2015-06-01 00:36:32)
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Ross Gammon wrote:
>
If someone suggests a new package is brought into the team, and it
is accepted, then the team is making a commitment at that point.
>>>
>>> How can you determine team commitment if on
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Ross Gammon wrote:
>>> If someone suggests a new package is brought into the team, and it is
>>> accepted, then the team is making a commitment at that point.
>>
>> How can you determine team commitment if only a single person is
>> working on the package? How is
On 05/31/2015 07:55 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Hi Ross,
[...] Quick response!
>> I agree in principle. But for me, having two uploaders does not test if
>> there is team commitment.
>
> I see two ways how to interpret this sentiment:
>
> a) the check is not strict enough, and misses many to
Hi Ross,
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Ross Gammon wrote:
> On 05/31/2015 02:58 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Well, it really boils down what we want the team's reputation to be.
>> The rule tests whether or not there is *team* commitment, and for that
>> you need *more than one person* activ
On 05/31/2015 02:58 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Well, it really boils down what we want the team's reputation to be.
> The rule tests whether or not there is *team* commitment, and for that
> you need *more than one person* actively caring for a package. If a
> package fails the "two active uploa
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 26 May 2015 at 09:38, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-05-26 14:33:41, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
>> > hmm, nobody ever answered to this email.
>> >
>> > mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded
2015-05-27 9:26 GMT+02:00 Fabian Greffrath :
> Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2015, 14:38 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
>> I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on
>> Uploaders and both are MIA. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the
>> team that are clearly
2015-05-27 9:26 GMT+02:00 Fabian Greffrath :
> Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2015, 14:38 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
>> I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on
>> Uploaders and both are MIA. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the
>> team that are clearly
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2015, 14:38 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
>> I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on
>> Uploaders and both are MIA. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the
>> team tha
Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2015, 14:38 +0200 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
> I think the rule is useless. It doesn't prevent us from having two persons on
> Uploaders and both are MIA. I'd rather orphan/remove the packages from the
> team that are clearly no longer maintained and nobody in the team care
On 2015-05-26 09:49:43, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 26 May 2015 at 09:38, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> >
> > On 2015-05-26 14:33:41, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> > > hmm, nobody ever answered to this email.
> > >
> > > mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded me of
On 26 May 2015 at 09:38, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>
> On 2015-05-26 14:33:41, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> > hmm, nobody ever answered to this email.
> >
> > mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded me of
> > that, and i would like to re-ask:
> >
> > How much do
On 2015-05-26 14:33:41, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> hmm, nobody ever answered to this email.
>
> mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded me of
> that, and i would like to re-ask:
>
> How much do we want to enforce our ">=2 uploaders per package" rule?
>
> If
hmm, nobody ever answered to this email.
mira's recent mail regarding a 2nd uploader of qxgedit reminded me of
that, and i would like to re-ask:
How much do we want to enforce our ">=2 uploaders per package" rule?
If a package does not have a 2nd uploader (any longer), should it be
removed from
due to a few recent mails [1], i was wondering how much we (would like
to) enforce our ">2 uploaders per package" rule.
i know of at least one package i maintain under the hood of
pkg-multimedia-maintainers, which has only a single uploader (me,
obviously).
soundscaperenderer
is anybody inter
23 matches
Mail list logo
