Hello Raphaël,
I like the idea of a Debian package maintenance hub that would extend and
replace the PTS, and consolidate available information in a single place. This
is especially useful as e-mail as a communication medium is declining. Spam is
abusing our mailboxes and our infrastructure, to
* Raphael Hertzog [120128 20:28]:
> Hum, we already have modified several Debian services (DAK, BTS) to send
> copies to the PTS. And I have mentionned that this copy sent to the PTS
> will let us use this new infrastructure also for packages where the
> Maintainer has not (yet) been updated.
>
>
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> High-level design of the new infrastructure
> ---
> ### Fixing the flow of information
> In order to cleanly solve the problem of the information flow, and to get
> rid of the hacks made everywhere to send a copy of the mails to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The current proposal is at the end in markdown format but you can also read
> it online in HTML format:
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep2/
I have updated it to take into account the comments received so far.
I put the complete text at the end and here
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> What I question is making the new address the new default for
> "Maintainer:". I'd rather only make it a possiblity (to replace
> mailing lists, for package groups, and for maintainers prefering it).
Well, the proposal doesn't force everybody to switc
* Raphael Hertzog [120128 18:42]:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > makes that field useless. It would make more sense to get rid of that
> > field then[1]. (Though I'd prefer to make it only optional).
I think I placed my focus wrongly, thus made my point not very clear.
What I
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Requiring the maintainer field to be set to a specific value effectively
> makes that field useless. It would make more sense to get rid of that
> field then[1]. (Though I'd prefer to make it only optional).
Well, it's not useless for a user who's loo
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:18:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > I'd like this new interface to be able to produce distribution wide
> > statistics regarding QA matters. I think this is covered by the
> > proposal.
>
> Can you elaborate?
>
> I don'
* Raphael Hertzog [120127 07:49]:
> High-level design of the new infrastructure
> ---
>
> ### Fixing the flow of information
>
> In order to cleanly solve the problem of the information flow, and to get
> rid of the hacks made everywhere to send a copy of the
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Paul Wise wrote:
> This proposal has a lot of potiential to change Debian for the better,
> thanks a lot.
Glad to see that several persons are sharing my enthusiasm. :-)
> I had planned to work on the BTS IRC bot from #debian-devel-changes
> and enable it to forward stuf
Hi,
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> I'd like this new interface to be able to produce distribution wide
> statistics regarding QA matters. I think this is covered by the
> proposal.
Can you elaborate?
I don't see any problem with this in theory, but your description is
rather vague.
This proposal has a lot of potiential to change Debian for the better,
thanks a lot.
I had planned to work on the BTS IRC bot from #debian-devel-changes
and enable it to forward stuff to more channels based on package name,
but it sounds like this proposal obsoletes that bot too.
I guess this p
12 matches
Mail list logo
