On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I gave it a bit more thought, but yes, I still think separation would be
better. Even if the infrastructure change would not be a game changer,
you can see it as a dependency of the role/commitment part.
Yes. OK, I'll try to decouple them at least
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 08:28:59AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
You're probably right that I should deal with them separately. But in
truth, this part is the one where I see the most long term benefits for
Debian because MIA tracking, knowing who is responsible of what, and
what you can
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I expect that the most difficult part will be to decide how to deal with
the commitment tracking part. What should we log? What sort of
relationships should be defined and what should they imply (in terms of
default set of information
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 04:32:40PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I have started to work on a DEP that is a bit broader in scope but that
should fix this at the same time.
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep2/
Thanks a lot for doing this!
There many many things in it that I like and that I think
Hi,
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:39:57AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
If someone cares enough about that to work on it, I'd like to see a
document(DEP-like) that would include:
I second this proposal, it seems to really be what we need.
Le lundi 1 décembre 2008 08:39:23, vous avez écrit :
Hi,
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation
but I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should be
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:39:57AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
If someone cares enough about that to work on it, I'd like to see a
document(DEP-like) that would include:
I second this proposal, it seems to really be what we need.
Unfortunately, I don't see myself having the energy to pursue
Hi,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Currently Dak and debbugs mail directly the Maintainer and send a copy to
the PTS. Other services mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and this one also mails the
Maintainer and send a copy the PTS.
You ask to modify the PTS to mail the Uploaders and I respond that it's
not a
On 01/12/08 at 08:39 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation but
I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should be
On 29/11/08 at 20:27 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
package: package.qa.debian.org
severity: wishlist
Hi,
currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
listed in
maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be send
to the addresses in
On 30/11/08 at 10:49 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 29/11/08 at 20:27 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
package: package.qa.debian.org
severity: wishlist
Hi,
currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 29/11/08 at 20:27 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
package: package.qa.debian.org
severity: wishlist
Hi,
currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
listed in
maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS.
Hi,
On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation but
I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should be auto-subscribed and that
we should simplify the situation by having all services mail directly the
PTS. And
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 08:27:19PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
listed in
Just to be sure: did you really mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
They are two different things.
AFAICT the latter is handled by the
Hi,
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Sunday 30 November 2008 10:49, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Holger your request is not really acceptable in the current situation but
I also think that Uploaders/Maintainers should be auto-subscribed and that
we should simplify the situation by
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:20:17 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
currently, mails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are only send to the address
listed in
maintainers and to those subscribed to the PTS. IMO they also should be
send
to the addresses in Uploaders:. Please do so.
Why? Uploaders are
Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (30/11/2008):
Why? Uploaders are probably subscribed to the PTS, *or* the
maintainer is a mailing list.
not always.
dpkg-reconfigure $user, then. Not a PTS bug, at least seen from here.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
On Sunday 30 November 2008 01:45, Adeodato Simó wrote:
(One could say that they should receive the mail nevertheless because
they've put their name in the control file. That's a valid point of
view, but that's not the status quo, and it's debatable whether it
should be that way, because
18 matches
Mail list logo
