Colin Watson wrote:
Perhaps we need a more organized system of sponsorship, so that people
who are stuck waiting in the NM queue can do QA work with some degree of
ease. At the moment it seems to be largely a matter of whether you're
lucky enough to find somebody who'll quickly and
Adrian Bunk wrote:
My impression is that currently maintainers are accepted too early. For
some AMs it's enough that they build one package (and thanks to debhelper
it's relatively easy to build a package) and even if they make a buggy
package this is sometimes enough to pass the Tasks Skills
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to suggest to change the way NM works.
Hmm, this topic seems to be quite popular these days, and I would
like to offer my opinions. I am currently in the final stage of my
NM process (awaiting DAM approval), and I have been there since
Sep 1, 2000.
On Sunday 17 December 2000 07:40, Martin Schulze wrote:
Colin Watson wrote:
Perhaps we need a more organized system of sponsorship, so that people
who are stuck waiting in the NM queue can do QA work with some degree of
ease. At the moment it seems to be largely a matter of whether you're
On 00-12-17 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
...
suggests to the NM team that he should become a Debian account. The NM
team (perhaps the current NM-Committee plus other interested Debian
developers) then looks critical at the work of the applicant,
Christian Kurz wrote:
Yes, and the main point of my proposal is: An applicant doesn't get his
account before he had worked some months for Debian. This lets us judge on
his whole work (e.g. his knowledge about packaging, how he handles
bugs,...).
I think we should define that he has to
On 00-12-17 Chuan-kai Lin wrote:
people have already stopped using it. The real problems are those
whose maintainers were MIA. As they are (supposedly) being taken care
of, nobody worries about them, and as the maintainers were MIA, the
bugs are not being addressed. So what should somebody
On 00-12-17 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Cord Beermann wrote:
No, I don't intend to change this. My point is: Someone who has a Debian
account can do much harm (intentional or accidential). That's a reason why
I think we should have a severe look at the work of an applicant
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
Well, what you propose here is an an removal of a debian developer and I
don't think this should be so easy as you describe it. We should be able
to have a checklist and if some checks fail delete his debian account.
If someone is really MIA and
I'm no maintainer but I'm using Debian since version 1.1, and I in my
experience it's a myth that the new Debian maintainers generally do a
worse job than the long-term maintainers do.
Adrian Bunk writes:
If we don't have severe look at the quality of the work of new
maintainers [...]
Why do
On Sunday 17 December 2000 12:09, Christian Kurz wrote:
On 00-12-17 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
...
suggests to the NM team that he should become a Debian account.
The NM team (perhaps the current NM-Committee plus other
interested Debian
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:33:35AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Here are the questions I thought about. Please take into account
that this is just a repost of a mail from Jun 12, 1999 and things
may have changed (i.e. debconf isn't mentioned). There is also
one bug included, feel free to
Andreas == Andreas Voegele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas I'm no maintainer but I'm using Debian since version 1.1,
Every Debian developer represents Debian (e.g. at exhibitions)
Andreas Do you think that all the long-term maintainers always represent
Andreas Debian in a favourable way?
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 03:42:36PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I've seen these not yet used guidelines for taking over packages and I
Those guidelines have been used at least once.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
[Hey, I didn't Cc you, why do you Cc me know? I read -qa and -project,
so I don't really need three copies of this mail.]
On 00-12-17 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
Well, what you propose here is an an removal of a debian developer and I
don't think this should
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas Voegele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adrian Bunk writes:
Every Debian developer represents Debian (e.g. at exhibitions)
Do you think that all the long-term maintainers always represent
Debian in a favourable way?
I am not sure
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:27:19AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:33:35AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Here are the questions I thought about. Please take into account
that this is just a repost of a mail from Jun 12, 1999 and things
may have changed (i.e. debconf
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
1. Where does elmo live?
[ ] a. Garbage can.
[ ] b. openprojects.net.
I'll add that one.
Regards,
Joey
--
GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
-- The GNU Manifesto
It seems to me that the bigger problem is developers who've already
made it in, but who just aren't doing their job.
Scanning the RC bug list, I see lots of bugs along the lines of wrong
build dependency, or simple 2-line patch included, many filed
months ago. If the problem's been fixed, why
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17 Dec 2000, Chuan-kai Lin wrote:
without being a maintainer and everything comes to a halt. The
goals I stated for joining Debian includes: work on the Chinese
translation of w.d.o and help with QA work for Chinese-specific
packages. Okay, enough for
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 07:29:30PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I want to suggest to change the way NM works.
Currently, someone applies at [1] and if he's lucky he has his account
less than 2 months after he applied.
what real benefit is there in erecting even more barriers-to-entry for
21 matches
Mail list logo
