2008/11/6 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A solution someone proposed would be to restrict
> the 'privilege' of getting new source packages into Ubuntu to people who are
> UUC
> or in ~ubuntu-dev.
For the record:
Michael's solution was intended to move new contributors to tasks
oth
On Thursday 06 November 2008 13:48, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Siegfried-Angel wrote:
> > to don't waste time reviewing the packages of those people who we have
> > already lost and who may not come back again, but instead to focus on
>
> I agree with this: we don't want unmaintain
Hi all,
Siegfried-Angel wrote:
> to don't waste time reviewing the packages of those people who we have
> already lost and who may not come back again, but instead to focus on
I agree with this: we don't want unmaintained packages in Ubuntu. Most of the
packages have a maintainer in Debian (and t
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Michael Bienia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-11-05 16:30:19 -0800, Jordan Mantha wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Siegfried-Angel
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Jordan: The intention of this is not to let the list look better, but
>> > to don't wa
On 2008-11-05 16:30:19 -0800, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Siegfried-Angel
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jordan: The intention of this is not to let the list look better, but
> > to don't waste time reviewing the packages of those people who we have
> > already lost and
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Siegfried-Angel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jordan: The intention of this is not to let the list look better, but
> to don't waste time reviewing the packages of those people who we have
> already lost and who may not come back again, but instead to focus on
> the p
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:08:43 -0800 "Jordan Mantha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Siegfried-Angel
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/11/2 James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Perhaps you would like to send a draft of the message to the list
>>> and I'll read it and te
Jordan: The intention of this is not to let the list look better, but
to don't waste time reviewing the packages of those people who we have
already lost and who may not come back again, but instead to focus on
the packages of contributors who are still active.
> not throw away hard work in order
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Siegfried-Angel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/2 James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Perhaps you would like to send a draft of the message to the list
>> and I'll read it and tell you any concerns I have with it.
>
> Here it is. Feel free to improve it!
>
> ht
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU/JauntyCleanupMessage
>
> I'd like to get this cleanup done tomorrow, so that we can start with
> a relatively clean REVU on Friday (the first REVU Day).
While we're at it, is something wrong with REVU uploads? I 'dput revu'
my two packages again yester
2008/11/2 James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Perhaps you would like to send a draft of the message to the list
> and I'll read it and tell you any concerns I have with it.
Here it is. Feel free to improve it!
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU/JauntyCleanupMessage
I'd like to get this
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Siegfried-Angel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can download diff.gz for the package, extract it and then
>> check control file to see build dependencies but then it will be
>> tiresome after some time.
>
> You can browse the files on REVU without downloading anythin
2008/11/4 Onkar Shinde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2. Improvement to REVU
> [...] there is no easy way to select the packages for review. [..] But
> currently I can not just take a look at REVU and know which packages
> fit into the criteria.
Yeah, that's indeed a problem about which I've thought more
Instead of replying to the comments made already I am trying to
present the points which I think are the root causes behind the large
number of items in the queue.
1. Man power
IIRC, there was time when only MOTU and Core Dev members could review
the package. A normal user could not add comment on
James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Comments on IRC indicate to me that I haven't changed anyone's mind
> on this issue, and that my contribution to this thread is not
> valued, so I will not post again to this thread.
at least for me, I do value your comments in this thread.
I have to ad
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 00:57 +0100, Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT) wrote:
> Hey,
>
>
> There's currently a quite big list of packages in the "Needs review"
> section of REVU, many of which date back from several months ago.
Comments on IRC indicate to me that I haven't changed anyone's mind
on this
Talking on IRC, I think a good comprise is limiting direct uploads to
REVU to those with Ubuntu Universe Contributor. The reasoning behind
this is that someone who has UUC is more likely to stick around, and
know who to ask to help get sponsors and the packaging is less likely
to require hand holdi
> I believe there are many in the Ubuntu community that feel more
> comfortable setting up packages for inclusion in Ubuntu as opposed
> to Debian, but that may be because they just aren't really aware of
> the Debian process.
Yes, I think this is a major issue. Ubuntu just feels much friendlier
t
I think that as much as possible, we need to try to get packages into
Debian. Not only are we contributing back into their repositories, but as
James said, we make our lives much easier. I believe there are many in the
Ubuntu community that feel more comfortable setting up packages for
inclusion in
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 18:49 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> I think this proposal is even more agressive and unfriendly to
> newcomers
> than Siegfried's original one.
>
> I translate it as: "We're sorry but we do not care about your package
> this time. Please try again next time, we'll see if w
James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I had another idea after my last mail: only open REVU for part of the
> cycle.
I think this proposal is even more agressive and unfriendly to newcomers
than Siegfried's original one.
I translate it as: "We're sorry but we do not care about your package
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:39:46 + James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 09:56 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:42:46 + Kasper Peeters
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don't have
>> >>
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 14:54 +0100, Siegfried-Angel wrote:
> 2008/11/2 Siegfried-Angel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 2008/11/2 James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> Instead of distracting them with a small change to the changelog, why
> >> not explain the situation more clearly and accurately? For all p
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 09:56 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:42:46 + Kasper Peeters
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don't have
> >> "jaunty" in debian/copyright to the "Needs work" section, leaving a
> >> comment
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:42:46 + Kasper Peeters
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don't have
>> "jaunty" in debian/copyright to the "Needs work" section, leaving a
>> comment asking to change it to "jaunty", check the standards version
>> and
2008/11/2 Siegfried-Angel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/11/2 James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Instead of distracting them with a small change to the changelog, why
>> not explain the situation more clearly and accurately? For all packages
>> older than 6 (?) months archive the package [..]
>
> He
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 08:43 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you are concerned about a large number of items in the list then we
> > should consider expiration, but I don't think this is the right way to
> > do it.
> > [...]
> > It does give a bad
> I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don't have
> "jaunty" in debian/copyright to the "Needs work" section, leaving a
> comment asking to change it to "jaunty", check the standards version
> and some general recommendations (or perhaps just a link to a new wiki
> page), so th
James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you are concerned about a large number of items in the list then we
> should consider expiration, but I don't think this is the right way to
> do it.
> [...]
> It does give a bad impression to new contributors though, as they may
> not understand why t
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 00:57 +0100, Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT) wrote:
> Hey,
>
>
> There's currently a quite big list of packages in the "Needs review"
> section of REVU, many of which date back from several months ago.
>
> I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don't have
> "
Caroline Ford wrote:
> As someone with a package in REVU which no-one has ever looked why
> would I make a new package for jaunty? My package is at least one
> release cycle old and there's no guarantee anyone would look at it
> this time round.
And I think this is exactly why we need to look at w
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 00:57 +0100, Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT) wrote:
> Hey,
>
>
> There's currently a quite big list of packages in the "Needs review"
> section of REVU, many of which date back from several months ago.
>
> I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don't have
> "
On Saturday 01 November 2008 20:18, Caroline Ford wrote:
> 2008/11/2 Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 00:57:06 +0100 "Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT)"
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Hey,
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don
2008/11/2 Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 00:57:06 +0100 "Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT)"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Hey,
>>
> ...
>>I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don't have
>>"jaunty" in debian/copyright to the "Needs work" section, leaving a
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 00:57:06 +0100 "Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hey,
>
...
>I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don't have
>"jaunty" in debian/copyright to the "Needs work" section, leaving a
>comment asking to change it to "jaunty", check the stan
Hey,
There's currently a quite big list of packages in the "Needs review"
section of REVU, many of which date back from several months ago.
I'm pondering on running a script to move all those which don't have
"jaunty" in debian/copyright to the "Needs work" section, leaving a
comment asking to c
36 matches
Mail list logo
