reassign 846002 tech-ctte
thanks
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:58:03AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Control: Severity -1 normal
src:blends 0.6.93 uploaded on 09 Apr 2016 introduced a new binary
package, blends-dev, with "priority: important", causing it to be
installed on *all* systems by debootstr
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 846002 tech-ctte
Bug #846002 [blends-tasks] blends-tasks must be priority:standard and not make
a mess out of tasksel menu
Bug reassigned from package 'blends-tasks' to 'tech-ctte'.
No longer marked as found in versions blends/0.6.94.
Ig
Hi Holger,
On 05.12.2016 13:46, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I'm sorry that I failed to respond yet.
I am quite angry about this: You basically opened this bug by stating
that you will do an NMU within 4-5 days, but you already knew that you
would not have time to discuss the bug before you planned th
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:34:56PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> I am quite angry about this: You basically opened this bug by stating
> that you will do an NMU within 4-5 days, but you already knew that you
> would not have time to discuss the bug before you planned this to happen.
I didnt knew t
Le vendredi, 2 décembre 2016, 16.00:36 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit :
> On debian-project I posted a suggestion in respose to Zach in the
> thread about maintaintainership. See below.
I've answered to parts of the debian-project thread.
> Do the TC think a resolution such as that below would pass ?
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 src:blends
Bug #846002 [tech-ctte] blends-tasks must be priority:standard and not make a
mess out of tasksel menu
Bug reassigned from package 'tech-ctte' to 'src:blends'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #846002 to the same values
previou
Control: reassign -1 src:blends
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016, Ole Streicher wrote:
> On 05.12.2016 13:46, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > I'm sorry that I failed to respond yet.
>
> I would prefer to have the arguments discussed first instead of just
> re-assigning to tech-ctte (which you did while I writing th
control: reassign -1 tech-ctte
control: retitle -1 blends-tasks must not be priority:important
thanks
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:43:18AM -0600, Don Armstrong wrote:
> if either of you disagree (or anyone else on the CTTE
> disagrees) and still want the CTTE to resolve this (slowly), feel free
> to
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 tech-ctte
Bug #846002 [src:blends] blends-tasks must be priority:standard and not make a
mess out of tasksel menu
Bug reassigned from package 'src:blends' to 'tech-ctte'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #846002 to the same values
previou
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:15:26PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > Can you explain why the TC is so reluctant to depose or overrule
> > maintainers ?
>
> Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job. If
> I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should take a
Ron writes:
...
> I'm not insisting that's what we should do. But it's certainly an
> option, and it dodges the bullet of having to say "Sucks to be you"
> without any notice at all. And it doesn't take anything away from
> the people who want "new upstream or bust" for Stretch, because it
> ca
Processing control commands:
> clone -1 -2
Bug #846002 [tech-ctte] blends-tasks must not be priority:important
Bug 846002 cloned as bug 847132
> reassign -2 src:blends
Bug #847132 [tech-ctte] blends-tasks must not be priority:important
Bug reassigned from package 'tech-ctte' to 'src:blends'.
Ignor
Control: clone -1 -2
Control: reassign -2 src:blends
Control: block -2 by -1
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016, Holger Levsen wrote:
> And yes, I still think it's really really wrong to have blends-tasks have
> "priority: important" which makes it getting installed by each and every
> debootstrap run by default
So, what impact does having blends-tasks have besides wasting disk
space.
It adds tasks to the installer menu. Are those tasks we want on all
system installs or not?
If this is purely about disk space, I think it's less of an issue than
if it provides a bad user experience.
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016, Sam Hartman wrote:
> So, what impact does having blends-tasks have besides wasting disk
> space.
It results in multiple extra tasks listed in the task selection screen
without describing the tasks or putting them into a submenu or similar.
[The screen shot Holger linked to is
15 matches
Mail list logo
