Matthew Palmer writes (Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about
#debian operator]):
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:50:54AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
It irritates us all. But I'd rather have substandard patches submitted
(just don't expect me to not go medieval
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:55:45PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
which should *not* go into debian. That is provided the debian
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:26:09PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I have no idea how ubuntu works internally, but my believe, since they
(canonical) pay people all around the world, and they don't have structures
locally to do the official hiring, they are forced to hire
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 08:29:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:00:22PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
Sounds like a very good idea, and fully in the scope of Utnubu. Some
questions:
* Is it common
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Joachim Breitner wrote:
I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better
than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth.
It is *MUCH* better to attach a patch than to paste a link, unless as others
said, you're talking about 1MB
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
corresponding patch filed in the BTS,
Every relevant change put into the BTS would be nice, yes.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:17:32 +0100
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
There's I screwed up because I made a mistake, and there's I
screwed up because I don't actually know what
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
corresponding patch filed in the BTS,
Every
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:57:37AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I don't disagree. I would much rather every
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:17:32AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
There's I screwed up because I made a mistake, and there's I screwed up
because I don't actually know what I'm doing, but I screwed up because I
didn't care about
On Thursday 15 December 2005 11:57, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Please give a reference to this directive. I am part of the MOTU team,
and have never heared about such a directive.
May be I've been a FUD victim too, but I've also heard that directive some
months ago.
Best regards
--
Isaac
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every relevant change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing
Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to
not
send patches directly to the BTS,
Please give a reference to this directive. I am
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep
up.
They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
which should
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
which should *not* go into debian.
A good idea for Ubuntu to ease this would be
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
It is true that some MOTUs don't consider submitting
to debian bts as priority because of bad experiences they had because
of unresponsive and unhelpful Debian Maintainers.
How much extra work is it to submit a patch one has
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
OTOH, I've seen a number of ubuntu patches which were blatantly wrong,
where the maintainer clearly didn't grok the package they were changing.
*This* irritates me mightily. The reason, as given by a MOTU when I asked
It irritates us all. But
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:50:54AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
OTOH, I've seen a number of ubuntu patches which were blatantly wrong,
where the maintainer clearly didn't grok the package they were changing.
*This* irritates me
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every relevant change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing
Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is
to not
send patches
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:55:45PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep
up.
They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
have the ubuntu
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random
maintainers.
Ubuntu does not have any employees.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:40:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random
maintainers.
Ubuntu does not have any employees.
Canoncal has.
Greetings
Marc, suppressing the remark
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:54:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
If the ubuntu patch database is public, and the patches therein
DFSG-free licensed, why don#t we establish an automatism which moves
patches from the Ubuntu patch database to the Debian BTS?
The Utnubu[1] project was started at
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:40:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random
maintainers.
Ubuntu does not have any employees.
Those guys that get money for ubuntu work. No need to
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:29PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:54:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
If the ubuntu patch database is public, and the patches therein
DFSG-free licensed, why don#t we establish an automatism which moves
patches from the Ubuntu
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges
I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean?
--
Andrew Saunders
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:26PM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges
I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean?
I have no idea how ubuntu works internally,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:26PM +, Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges
I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean?
My best
Sven Luther wrote:
I have no idea how ubuntu works internally, but my believe, since they
(canonical) pay people all around the world, and they don't have structures
locally to do the official hiring, they are forced to hire independent worker,
who pay their social charges and stuff
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to not
send patches directly to the BTS,
Please give a reference to this directive. I am part of the MOTU team,
and have never heared about such a directive.
There was a large thread on
Hi,
(I just got the mails to utnubu-discuss, so bear with me)
Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to
the BTS, which would notice an URL to an ubuntu patch, and auto-attach it (and
complain
Joachim Breitner wrote:
I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better
than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth.
It's SOP in Debian to attach patches to bug reports. I might consider
doing otherwise if the patch exceeded 1 megabyte.
(And yes, I'm on
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 16:13 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
Joachim Breitner wrote:
I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better
than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth.
It's SOP in Debian to attach patches to bug reports. I might
On Thursday 15 December 2005 04:03 am, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive,
and have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific
patches which should *not*
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to
the BTS, which would notice an URL to an ubuntu patch, and auto-attach it
(and
complain loudly to the submitter if the URL
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:00:22PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
(I just got the mails to utnubu-discuss, so bear with me)
Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to
the BTS, which
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:23:36PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2005 04:03 am, Marc Haber wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive,
and have the ubuntu guys only
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
corresponding patch filed in the BTS,
Every relevant change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing
everything in the BTS would result in a lot of patch,wontfix
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
There's I screwed up because I made a mistake, and there's I screwed up
because I don't actually know what I'm doing, but I screwed up because I
didn't care about doing a quality job is on a whole other level.
I have much
38 matches
Mail list logo
