On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not released roughly two months after
the last
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:13:42PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
So, my question: please name anyth behaviour or act you've observed with
previous DPLs (naming the name of the respective DPL is not required)
that you think was a mistake, and which you will try not to make during
your term?
I
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 03:27:03PM -0500, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
If you were not running for DPL, which of the other candiates would you
most likely vote for (or since you are running, rank as '2' on your
ballot)? Why?
Which of the other canidate's platform statements do you agree with,
Changes are currently being implemented to improve the handling of
proposed-updates, in order to have those point releases happing more
Since I'm currently running very low on time it may very well be that I
completely missed this, so could you please give me a short hint where to
find more
* Michael Meskes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060307 09:35]:
Changes are currently being implemented to improve the handling of
proposed-updates, in order to have those point releases happing more
Since I'm currently running very low on time it may very well be that I
completely missed this, so
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:02:02AM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:13:42PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
During DPL campaigning, it seems in for candidates to propose all
sorts of Great Things they will try to do once elected. While this is
obviously all
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 17:28 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I think the first thing to note is that irregular point releases aren't
a big deal
I think they are underrated; they provide a good service to our users.
- People buy CD's or use the non-net-install images because they don't
have the
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My own opinion is that if an applicant is doing a sizable job in Debian
already, they should be exempted of much of TS. They have shown the
skill to do the work they are more likely to do anyway, and they will
have time to learn new skills as they need
Le Mar 7 Mars 2006 12:59, Frank Küster a écrit :
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My own opinion is that if an applicant is doing a sizable job in
Debian already, they should be exempted of much of TS. They have
shown the skill to do the work they are more likely to do anyway,
and
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:30:32PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 17:28 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I think the first thing to note is that irregular point releases aren't
a big deal
I think they are underrated; they provide a good service to our users.
*shrug* I didn't
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Le Mar 7 Mars 2006 12:59, Frank Küster a écrit :
I agree with that. What is really painful in the NM queue, as I lived
it, is the time between the steps [1]:
[Received application] - [Application Manager Assigned]
and between :
[Appliaction Manager recommends to
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
almost 3 monthes to have an AM
2 days to pass TS and PP
5 days more because of a mail of mine, stuck on an SMTP
exactly 8 monthes (WTF !?!?!) to have then my account created.
Did you notice that things have changed a bit since Joerg is acting
as pre-DAM?
Regards,
- Forwarded message from Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:23:33 +0100
From: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: XX
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Request to be approved as FTP-Master
I hereby request to be approved as FTP-master with
Anthony Towns wrote:
which is to change the queue structure so that uploads don't enter
proposed-updates until approved by the SRM.
I'm wondering why you don't take the more obvious step: add the SRM as
an ftp-master for specifically updating stable.
I was made an ftp-master for the
Le Mar 7 Mars 2006 14:19, Martin Schulze a écrit :
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
almost 3 monthes to have an AM
2 days to pass TS and PP
5 days more because of a mail of mine, stuck on an SMTP
exactly 8 monthes (WTF !?!?!) to have then my account created.
Did you notice that things have
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with that. What is really painful in the NM queue, as I lived
it, is the time between the steps [1]:
[Received application] - [Application Manager Assigned]
and between :
[Appliaction Manager recommends to DAM] - Account Created.
I took
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:27:56PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
These changes are all great and will help problems in the process, but
they don't help finding an ftpmaster to a) respond to mails from the
SRM, b) assign time to implement the update and c) finally do the
update. It's
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:22:30AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
*sigh*
For the record:
Feb 6th: SRM sends mail to ftp-master trying to negotiate a timeline
Mar 5th: SRM sends another mail since nobody replied to the old one
Mar 5th: aj complains that nobody answered his mail from Feb 22
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:54:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Dec 14th, 2.6.8 and 2.4.27 advisories get released, the first
kernel updates for sarge
Dec 17th, 3.1r1 gets released
Dec 20th, 3.1r1 gets announced
Jan 20th, DSA-946-1 is released for sudo, breaking the
Anthony Towns wrote:
There are, for instance, a range of outstanding RC bugs
on sudo as a result of the security release for it that need fixing,
which aiui aren't being worked on
Bdale said he would prepare a patch, that would add more documentation
and whitelist some more env vars like
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
I note that it took you 16 days to reply, and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
release 3.1r1?) and 3.1r2. May I ask why?
It seemed
* Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-07 16:10]:
Anthony Towns wrote:
There are, for instance, a range of outstanding RC bugs
on sudo as a result of the security release for it that need fixing,
which aiui aren't being worked on
Bdale said he would prepare a patch, that would
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
I note that it took you 16 days to reply, and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was
Anthony Towns wrote:
*sigh*
Full ack.
For the record:
Feb 6th: SRM sends mail to ftp-master trying to negotiate a timeline
Mar 5th: SRM sends another mail since nobody replied to the old one
Mar 5th: aj complains that nobody answered his mail from Feb 22 about
modificating
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:27PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
There are, for instance, a range of outstanding RC bugs
on sudo as a result of the security release for it that need fixing,
which aiui aren't being worked on
Bdale said he would prepare a patch, that
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:54:58AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Dec 14th, 2.6.8 and 2.4.27 advisories get released, the first
kernel updates for sarge
Dec 17th, 3.1r1 gets released
Dec 20th, 3.1r1 gets announced
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Marc Haber wrote:
I note that it took you 16 days to reply, and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
release 3.1r1?) and
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
It seemed obvious to me. If uploads to s-p-u are blocked for approval by
the SRM, this needs to happen just after a point release so that s-p-u is
empty
to start with the new system (probably because once a package is in s-p-u,
there's no easy
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:29:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Feb 6th, Joey mails indicating he'd like to release the update
at the end of Feb (27th/28th) or a little bit later at
the end of February.
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
It seemed obvious to me. If uploads to s-p-u are blocked for approval by
the SRM, this needs to happen just after a point release so that s-p-u is
empty
to start with the new system (probably because once a package is
Marc Haber wrote:
and that you seem to want to
build a dependency between a change which is not strictly needed to
make a point release (if it were needed, why was it possible to
release 3.1r1?) and 3.1r2. May I ask why?
The dependency is the other way -- that change needs to
There's none apart of requiring again work from ftpmasters the next time.
And since good programmers are lazy ... :-))
Now this might be a totally stupid question, but if ftpmasters are too lazy
or, more seriously, do not have the time for this additonal work, why don't
we just add more ftp
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:27:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
And that's a reason to delay a point release?
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:30:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
And what is the problem to introduce that with 3.1r3 or even 3.1r4?
(Though of course the original mail should still be
Anthony Towns wrote:
(a) branching the archive or doing other necessary changes to ensure
netinst CDs etc work reliably
Netinsts are relatively robust (though can be broken), businesscard,
netboot, and floppy would really benefit from that.
(b) security.d.o support against the last
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt) writes:
What would you do to make regular point releases possible?
An even more interesting question for all of the candidates is what do you
think should be included in point releases?
Point releases are currently primarily a folding-in of security
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) writes:
Anthony Towns wrote:
(a) branching the archive or doing other necessary changes to ensure
netinst CDs etc work reliably
Netinsts are relatively robust (though can be broken), businesscard,
netboot, and floppy would really benefit from that.
* Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-07 11:18:31]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt) writes:
What would you do to make regular point releases possible?
An even more interesting question for all of the candidates is what do you
think should be included in point releases?
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[what should be put into point releases]
Actually I discussed this with our release managers today, since
I was wondering if it would be sensible and feasable to include
more progressive (as in newer) software into stable.
It seems to be sensible and
Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be We
didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year and
justification for that seems to be I'll be in charge instead of
Branden. If that's the case, why did you not step up to provide
leadership within the team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 02.03.2006 um 13:38 schrieb Anthony Towns:
people knew Debian was exciting and
growing thanks to his posts to -announce and -private when interesting
things happened;
More important for Debian were his posts to -announce and his
visibility
* Jutta Wrage [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-07 20:58]:
More important for Debian were his posts to -announce and his
visibility outside Debian than those in -private.
FWIW, the DPL cannot post to -announce and most suggestions for
announcement I made were rejected by our press guy. (e.g. when
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When important teams seem to be disfunctional or have a hard time to
find a structure that scales into the future I would however use my
powers of delegation to restructure the team from the outside. I would
only do that after I worked with the team
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:59:10PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Not that I couldn't have learned that also later, when I really needed
it. But the NM process was in fact a good opportunity to learn it
right, get immediate feedback on my achievements (and not via the
BTS...), and to take it
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006, Bill Allombert wrote:
So we should try to do better, but processing more applicants mean
more work for the NM team hence we need more Debian developers
willing to be involved in the NM process.
My own opinion is that if an applicant is doing a sizable job in
Debian
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060307 20:33]:
Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be We
didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year and
justification for that seems to be I'll be in charge instead of
Branden. If that's the case, why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 03.03.2006 um 19:23 schrieb Ted Walther:
My platform was run through the HTML tidy program with the -asxml
option. No warnings, errors, or complaints were output by the
program,
which declared it fully XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN compliant.
Hi,
the past, there were some issues that seem to indicate that the current
Debian System Administrator team (DSA team) is overworked, as problems
were not adressed in a timely fashion. The following just lists some of
these issues:
* Problems with one of the security.debian.org host network
Hi,
At what point does a Debian Developer's behavior cross the line from
annoying to destructive? At what point should the Developer be removed
from the project (key removed from keyring, alioth account disabled, and
blacklisted from mailing lists and the bts)? As DPL, how would you go
about
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 02:13:42PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Hi,
During DPL campaigning, it seems in for candidates to propose all
sorts of Great Things they will try to do once elected. While this is
obviously all interesting information, it leaves out something that, I
think, is also
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-04 13:06:37]:
Though there are often threads about problems with it on our mailing
lists, the NM process hasn't changed much in the last three or four
years. What do you think about the most common
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:06:37PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Do you think that we need to change the NM checks?
[...]
As an example where I think the current situation is suboptimal, the
current template's library questions are too
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:06:37PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
2. Asks for too broad knowledge
It has been suggested several times over the years that we ask too
many questions of NM candidates. People want to do work for Debian,
but not
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
packages that are accepted into the next stable point release on a
regular basis, they normally are not
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I personally don't think it's a huge issue if those point releases are
not 100% regular, because for the majority it's security updates, but
it's still good to have them not too far apart, esp. for those updates
that are not also already
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:18:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt) writes:
What would you do to make regular point releases possible?
An even more interesting question for all of the candidates is what do you
think should be included in point releases?
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:18:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt) writes:
What would you do to make regular point releases possible?
An even more interesting question for all of the candidates is what do you
think should be included in point
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
After following the thread on here on -vote, I have the impression that
this fixes something that's not a problem - as it doesn't reduce the
work needed to be done by the ftp-team, which seems to be the current
bottleneck.
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:33:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be We
didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year and
justification for that seems to be I'll be in charge instead of
Branden. If that's the
This is why I hate trying to talk about things on Debian lists, for
reference.
/me watches in disbelief. You hate trying to talk about things on Debian
lists? Do you really think running for DPL is a good idea then?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at
[M-F-T set appropriately]
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Though Martin 'Joey' Schulze as stable release manager presents lists of
*shrug* I guess you've got a right to your own impression. Mine differs,
and I think I've got more to base it on than you do -- or than Joey does
for that matter. What do you want me to say?
Which if course is a valid argument if and only if you are willing to share
your insights.
Michael
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:33:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Thanks for the answers. However, to a large extent they seem to be We
didn't fulfil many of our aims last year, but we will this year and
justification for that seems to be I'll be in charge
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:09:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:27:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
And that's a reason to delay a point release?
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:30:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
And what is the problem to introduce that with 3.1r3 or
Hi,
I'd like to ask some questions to the prospecitve project leaders:
1. Which are Debians top five strengths in your opinion?
2. Where do you identify Debians top five problems?
3. Do you plan to do anything to change the public recognition that
Debian suffers from severe release problems
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:59:30PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Feb 6th, Joey mails indicating he'd like to release the update
at the end of Feb
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:53:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
After following the thread on here on -vote, I have the impression that
this fixes something that's not a problem - as it doesn't reduce the
work needed to
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:19:19AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:12:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:59:30PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Feb 6th, Joey mails indicating he'd
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006, Martin Schulze wrote:
Ignoring the question whether Branden was actually providing
insufficient leadership:
I don't think it'd be particularly well-recieved if someone who, after
all, was not elected, would assume leadership. Regardless of the
Hmm, but that's how
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
After following the thread on here on -vote, I have the impression that
this fixes something that's not a problem - as it doesn't reduce the
work needed to be done by the
Martin Schulze wrote:
- Forwarded message from Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:23:33 +0100
From: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: XX
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Request to be approved as FTP-Master
I hereby request to be
70 matches
Mail list logo
