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 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 im
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 bee
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 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 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 d
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. Instea
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 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
[ 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 wr
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
> P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very
> much. Oh well... :-)
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
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
> > id
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
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
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 prop
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 t
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 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
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
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 mandatory (we do have several very
>efficient one-man-band developers), but
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".
>
>> What I would do if the times will come, is to
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".
> What I would do if the times will come, is to get in touch with NM
> people.
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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
