On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Now, what we don't agree on:
> - I think that giving some time should only be very strongly
>recommended, but not mandatory.
> - You think that giving some time should be mandatory.
> I think that our opinions are basically th
With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.35, the following
changes to the keyring have been made:
dm:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Full name: Anuradha Weeraman
Added key: F190A93A75D2BF6B2B3C1C3E7C64D4A494D68544
A summary of all the changes in this upload follows.
Debian distribution maintena
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:23:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also
> > clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be
> > ha
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:25:34 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
> The goal of the DEP is precisely to replace this section 5.11, and
> change the usual NMU rules. That's why it's submitted as a DEP (to
> allow broad discussion), n
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also
> clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be
> handled with a high priority.
Not that I am against requiring the specific NM
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 09:49 -0700, Steve Langasek kirjoitti:
> Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also
> clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be
> handled with a high priority.
I agree with that, of course.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 04:08:39PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> pe, 2008-05-30 kello 22:01 +0900, Charles Plessy kirjoitti:
> > Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:50:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > > Please come back in 2008! ;-)
> > > You speak as an "elder" that doesn't want to move forward
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080530 15:46]:
> Please try to put yourself also in the situation of someone that does
> NMUs. Having to mail the maintainer to ask if the NMU is welcome is
> pointless when you have gone to the trouble of creating a full patch.
I think there is an important
On Friday 30 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything
> wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting
> time, but that's your own problem). So no reasons are needed for it.
I find your argumentation rather weak, bu
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:01:05PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I have read better emails from you, Raphaël.
Useless personal attack.
> The difference between "using the BTS" and "asking the maintainer" is
> that dropping a patch in the BTS is not asking the maintainer if the NMU
> is welcome.
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
> The difference between "using the BTS" and "asking the maintainer" is
> that dropping a patch in the BTS is not asking the maintainer if the NMU
> is welcome.
In http://wiki.debian.org/NmuDep I see things like "Did you give enough
time to the maintainer
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree that that would be more convenient. I don't know if there's
> consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a
> couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a
> couple of weeks or so.
I would prefer to
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 22:01 +0900, Charles Plessy kirjoitti:
> Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:50:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> >
> > Please come back in 2008! ;-)
> > You speak as an "elder" that doesn't want to move forward
> > But no, you prefer to not explain your problem...
> > Please sto
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 04:34 -0700, Richard Hecker kirjoitti:
> I just do not see the value when some
> Johnny-come-lately decides that all the decisions need to
> be reworked.
I'd like to add my voice to the choir of people who think the length of
participation in Debian development should not matt
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:50:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> Please come back in 2008! ;-)
> You speak as an "elder" that doesn't want to move forward
> But no, you prefer to not explain your problem...
> Please stop this pissing contest...
I have read better emails from you, Raphaël.
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Richard Hecker wrote:
> In years past, I would route all email through an employment
> account (I basically lived there anyway and it was the best option
> to assure timely reception and response ;-). In this environment,
> it was common to remind people that vacations could la
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:57:21PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> The new paragraph is: (yes, wdiff is hard to read)
>
>While there are no general rules, it's strongly recommended to give
>some time to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to
>the DELAYED queue). Her
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 30/05/08 at 01:44 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
..
You failed to find consensus in the thread I referenced in the
previous message.
... which led me to thinking of what we could do to improve the current
situation while staying consensual.
Because I didn
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> pe, 2008-05-30 kello 11:42 +0200, Simon Josefsson kirjoitti:
> > I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are
> > licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the
> > Expat, X11 or the modi
On 30/05/08 at 12:23 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:03:16PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I think that when the mainainer is active, he has to be consulted if a
> > NMU is planned. As a compromise with those who disagree, I propose that
> > he should be given time to react
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 11:42 +0200, Simon Josefsson kirjoitti:
> I believe it would lead to less problems to require that all DEPs are
> licensed under a liberal and widely compatible license, such as the
> Expat, X11 or the modified BSD license.
I agree that that would be more convenient. I don't k
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:03:16PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that when the mainainer is active, he has to be consulted if a
> NMU is planned. As a compromise with those who disagree, I propose that
> he should be given time to react.
I'm one of the people who "disagrees", but actually
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:40:53AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > the DEP says:
> > - must use BTS,
> > - usage of DELAYED is recommended.
>
> I would like to see at least two cases where communication with the
> maintainer is required *before* u
Hi again,
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:40:53AM +0200, Frans Pop a écrit :
> - packages that are clearly actively maintained (can be seen from changelog)
> - packages that are maintained by active teams
>
> There should normally be no need to NMU in such cases and just preparing a
> good patch for
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> License
> ---
>
> The DEP must have a license that is DFSG free.
>
> I've just pushed that to http://bzr.debian.org/dep/dep0/trunk/ (I didn't
> think that needs any discussion; if I was wrong, it's easy enough to
> r
On 30/05/08 at 17:38 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
> >
> > Yes, communication is good. We have several media for it, the two most
> > important ones being mailing lists and the BTS (IMO). This DEP proposes
> > to use the BTS for com
On 30/05/08 at 01:44 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
>>> Some people will prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the
>>> maintainer. They will claim that this was 'done by the book.'
>>>
>>
>> As long as the NMUe
On Fri May 30 08:48, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > This means that people can opt out using DELAYED, but must post something
> > in the BTS. I think that the problem is not whether the communication is
> > public in the BTS or private, it is that "something the BTS" does not
> > imply communication. One
On Friday 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
> the DEP says:
> - must use BTS,
> - usage of DELAYED is recommended.
I would like to see at least two cases where communication with the
maintainer is required *before* uploading (DELAYED or not) by sending
an "intend to NMU" (conform current poli
On 2008-05-30, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
>>
>> Yes, communication is good. We have several media for it, the two most
>> important ones being mailing lists and the BTS (IMO). This DEP proposes
>> to use the BTS for
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
..
The DEP's content is different from what was discussed back then (have
you read it?). And I think that there's consensus that the NMU rules
Yes, I have read it. That is one reason why I stated that I have
th
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
>
> Yes, communication is good. We have several media for it, the two most
> important ones being mailing lists and the BTS (IMO). This DEP proposes
> to use the BTS for communication about NMUs. It was that way already
> AFAIK, alt
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:47:45PM -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
> I see the same weakness that Henrique listed above. Some people will
> prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the maintainer.
Posting the patch in the BTS does actually send mail to the maintainer.
And it's nicely "in time",
33 matches
Mail list logo
