Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== Upstream Maintainers ==
[...]
Authorised by: Existing maintainer
Notes: package should be co-maintained by maintainer and upstream, upstream
generally to be expected to be uploading code changes rather than
packaging changes
I'm not sure I
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 20:45]:
You're already doing that in the sense that
uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed
bugs to that person.
For that there luckily is pts subscription available. (So those bugs
cannot be hidden by closing them before I
On Monday 25 June 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
== Sponsored Maintainers =
For packages that're maintained by non-DDs on an ongoing basis via
sponsored uploads, DM status provides the sponsor with the opportunity
to change the upload priveleges from default-deny to default-allow
once they
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
== N-M Delays
This one suck, because NM delays are mostly fixeable, and DM will just
make them not painful at all for DD, depriving the system to be fixed.
This is exactly the use case I fear.
That's why I'd like some
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:13:31AM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
Do we have any numbers on how many non-DD maintainers we have? I'm part of
that group, but how large a group is this?
There are about 2100 unique email address in the Maintainer: and
Uploaders: field in the unstable
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:22:48AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070625 20:45]:
You're already doing that in the sense that
uploading such a package already instructs the BTS to forwards filed
bugs to that person.
For that there luckily is pts
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
So here's a proposal for the Debian Maintainers idea that's been floating
around for some time now [...]
I've used terms like initial policy quite a bit -- [...]
Shortly before leaving
Hi!
* Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070626 13:51]:
There are about 2100 unique email address in the Maintainer: and
Uploaders: field in the unstable Sources files. That counts mailing
lists and potentially multiple alternate addresses for DDs as well as
non-DD maintainers of course.
I
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
Do we have any numbers on how many non-DD maintainers we have? I'm part of
that group, but how large a group is this?
A very long one-liner[1] gets me 992 in the main unstable archive. Of course
the number is different since the debian-keyring in the unstable
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 02:35:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Someone with access to the real keyrings would be
able to tell you the right number.
TTBOMK, the real keyring can be obtained by ssh by DDs, at
merkel:/srv/keyring.debian.org/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg
and via anonymous
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:18:57AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
However, like Pierre, I'm not convinced that the numbers of actually
interested people is large.
FWIW, I'm happy to put the work into this even if not many people end
up using it.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 02:35:56PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Someone with access to the real keyrings would be
able to tell you the right number.
TTBOMK, the real keyring can be obtained by ssh by DDs, at
merkel:/srv/keyring.debian.org/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:18:57AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
However, like Pierre, I'm not convinced that the numbers of actually
interested people is large.
I suspect one reason that this thread hasn't resulted in many people
expressing an interest is that non-DDs tend not to read
OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du mercredi 27 juin 2007, vers 01:06, Paul
Cager [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait:
I'm a fairly active (non-DD) member of the Java Packaging team, and I
also maintain a couple of non-Java packages. Although I'm starting to
become reasonably skilled at Java packaging, I'm
14 matches
Mail list logo
