Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
> ...
> > Mmm, well, what if I sent just one bug against ftp.debian.org saying
> > "these 100 packages should not have `optional' priority but `extra'&quo
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
...
> Mmm, requiring a lot of action for a lot of packages has not to be
> discussed also? This is also a problem, not only getting rid of the bug
> themselves, because people may disagree very easily.
By se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
> ...
> > Mmm, well, what if I sent just one bug against ftp.debian.org saying
> > "these 100 packages should not ha
Christian Schwarz writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
...
> You're proposal (at least, something very similar) is already policy. The
> `Debian Developer's Reference' reads:
[...]
Ah. My new phrasing is somewhat stronger, and covers any kind o
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Proposal how to handle mass bug reports"):
...
> Mmm, well, what if I sent just one bug against ftp.debian.org saying
> "these 100 packages should not have `optional' priority but `extra'"?
>
> I would say your proposed polic
> > > Noone may submit many bug reports or send mail to many maintainers
> > > without prior approval for the specific person in question to send
> > > mail under those specific circumstances.
> >
> > approval from whom?
>
> Several people already have "mass mailer" scripts (bcwhite, Christian,
> 1) The bug server takes care of reminding maintainers that have packages
>with old unattended bugs. Everyone knows that there are old bugs open.
>There is no need to send reminders without additional information specific
>to the bug. Therefore, sending reminders to a bunch of old bu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 18.03.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As I mentioned in a previsou message, I do not like this
> trend. I understand people are annoyed at spurious bug reports, but
> the goal is to have packages without bugs, and strictly prohibiting
> automate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Noone may submit many bug reports or send mail to many maintainers
> without prior approval for the specific person in question to send
> mail under those specific circumstances.
>
> Even for violation by packages o
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> James Troup:
> > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Noone may submit many bug reports or send mail to many maintainers
> > > without prior approval for the specific person in question to send
> > > mail under those specific circumstances.
> >
On Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 01:43:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a few comments on this.
>
> 2) Lintian bugs: Yes, the maintainer should make sure that the
> package passes Lintian checks. If they do not, however, they
> should expect to see bugs reported about th
James Troup:
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Noone may submit many bug reports or send mail to many maintainers
> > without prior approval for the specific person in question to send
> > mail under those specific circumstances.
>
> approval from whom?
This mailing list.
Ian.
-
On Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 07:35:48PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > 3) Any bug that can be detected by a script or other automated way should
> > be
> >implemented as Lintian check, because then the check applies also to all
> >future versions of the package and all
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> 3) Any bug that can be detected by a script or other automated way should be
>implemented as Lintian check, because then the check applies also to all
>future versions of the package and all advantages of Lintian come into
>play.
> For this reason, it is
Hi,
As I mentioned in a previsou message, I do not like this
trend. I understand people are annoyed at spurious bug reports, but
the goal is to have packages without bugs, and strictly prohibiting
automated bug reports is a Bad Thing.
Secondly, what purpose does asking each and
Hi,
I have a few comments on this.
2) Lintian bugs: Yes, the maintainer should make sure that the
package passes Lintian checks. If they do not, however, they
should expect to see bugs reported about that.
Lintian should not produce errors about things which are not
b
On 18 Mar 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Noone may submit many bug reports or send mail to many maintainers
> > without prior approval for the specific person in question to send
> > mail under those specific circumstances.
>
> approval from whom?
S
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Noone may submit many bug reports or send mail to many maintainers
> without prior approval for the specific person in question to send
> mail under those specific circumstances.
approval from whom?
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
I think we should have the following much simpler and clearer policy:
Noone may submit many bug reports or send mail to many maintainers
without prior approval for the specific person in question to send
mail under those specific circumstances.
Even for violation by packages of an already-est
On Mon, Mar 16, 1998 at 03:38:12PM -0500, Igor Grobman wrote:
> > With the rash of self-appointed mass-posts of similar bugs (the most
> > recent being Michael Bramer's decision that all xpm files should be
> > moved), I think we need policy as to what can be done when someone trys to
> > formulate
20 matches
Mail list logo
