Hi again Patrick!
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:31:04AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:15:00AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Of course, there are places where our work does need co-ordination,
like before a release. And those are the places where we often end up
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:58:34PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Stefano, actually I agree with its good intention. What I actually
think is that we are kidding ourselves, because we already see whats
needed, but don't go an active way of solving something which might
be an issue. Instead
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:46:31AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:58:34PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Stefano, actually I agree with its good intention. What I actually
think is that we are kidding ourselves, because we already see whats
needed, but don't
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:15:00AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
What do you think about such a proposal?
I'd be quite worried about the blocking potential of such a move,
actually. One of the reasons that Debian scales so well is that *most*
of the work we do day-to-day does not depend on
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:31:34AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
existing maintainers to join it. In the end I don't have a problem
if this team is somewhat bigger. What I think is valueable about such a
team is the effects that come from beeing
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Turning this into a question for you: why the core-team you are
imagining as a backup should not become the actual maintenance team
instead of staying in the backup role?
.. to make the core-team the actual maintenance team and asking the
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:21:23AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Sure. Its no criticism targetted at the PTS maintainers. Its not
even criticism at all. Its just noteing that it got the attention of
someone, but it seems it didn't get the attention of the
project. Which would be quiet
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:42:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, some time back I wrote some patches for coreutils. Unfortunately
they are not yet integrated, but thats not the fault of the maintainer.
However I think it could help if the project decides that this is a good
idea
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:00:39PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
people. My proposal would be to add a join a team entry as one of
the *recommended* step in our join checklists.
I agree that this is a good idea.
Cool.
Let me add a second way to implement that default; I've split it
in a
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:42:11AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I'm very much a fan of people working together on their packages, but
I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to make teams the default. If
snip
P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
much. Oh well... :-)
[ ACK on the comment that proposals like this one deserve a wider
audience than -vote and the candidates. Given you are asking, here
is my answer, which does not inhibit re-raising the issue elsewhere
of course (hint hint :-)) ]
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 05:48:08PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[ ACK on the comment that proposals like this one deserve a wider
audience than -vote and the candidates. Given you are asking, here
is my answer, which does not inhibit re-raising the issue elsewhere
of course (hint
Hi Patrick,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
In Debian we have some packages that are either by default on every
system or are commonly expected to be found on Debian systems. Such
tools could be called the core of our system, because they are most
commonly
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
What do you think about such a proposal?
Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:25:11AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
What do you think about such a proposal?
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
I expressly refrained to answer your mail because it targetted the DPL
candidate but IMO it's one those false good ideas until you make it a
reality. I'm all for a team of many people improving the base packages,
so find those people and start
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:28:56AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Well, because it is in line with the questions which they have been
asked and its both a good chance to see weither they stand on a similar
point
as I do and to see weither anyone is interested in the idea
at all.
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:42:11AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Stefano, Steve and Luk,
Hi again Charles!
I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance:
Collaborative maintenance should not be
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Some of these packages are very well maintained and others.. well,
bug numbers sometimes speak for themselves. For these packages we have
that cool text on the PTS pages: The package is of priority standard
or higher, you
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
What do you think about such a proposal?
Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this proposal,
instead of proposing it to the developers?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 05:39:38PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Collaborative maintenance should not be mandatory (we do have
several very efficient one-man-band developers), but should be our
default.
snip
What I would do if the times will come, is to get in touch with NM
people. My
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 05:39:38PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Collaborative maintenance should not be mandatory (we do have
several very efficient one-man-band developers), but should be our
default.
snip
What I would do if the times will come, is to get in
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance:
Collaborative maintenance should not be mandatory (we do have
several very efficient one-man-band developers), but should be our
default.
First of all, I would
Dear Stefano, Steve and Luk,
I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance:
Collaborative maintenance should not be mandatory (we do have several very
efficient one-man-band developers), but should be our default.
First of all, I would be interested to know if it is a point
24 matches
Mail list logo
