On 07/12/2010 10:49 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2010-07-12, Clint Adams wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:24:19PM +0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> I think it should be. Or the porters should monitor the builds on their
>>> architecture to be able to detect FTBFS and act on them, without the
>>
On 2010-07-12, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:24:19PM +0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> I think it should be. Or the porters should monitor the builds on their
>> architecture to be able to detect FTBFS and act on them, without the
>> maintainer having to manually ping them.
>
> If
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:24:19PM +0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think it should be. Or the porters should monitor the builds on their
> architecture to be able to detect FTBFS and act on them, without the
> maintainer having to manually ping them.
If I were a porter, I would not bother doing t
On 12/07/10 at 18:05 +, Clint Adams wrote:
> Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin
> (if, for some reason, the buildd admin is not a porter)
> to notify an architecture's porters of any porting issues
> manifesting themselves in a package build?
I think it should be. Or the po
Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin
(if, for some reason, the buildd admin is not a porter)
to notify an architecture's porters of any porting issues
manifesting themselves in a package build?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject o
5 matches
Mail list logo