On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 22:56:57 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Could I just check if there's a point of common acceptability which both
> sides of this discussion could live with?
>
> libpam-systemd | network-manager-nonsystemd
Presumably this is an optimized form of what we perhaps conceptually m
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 09:51:56AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 22:56:57 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > Could I just check if there's a point of common acceptability which both
> > sides of this discussion could live with?
> >
> > libpam-systemd | network-manager-nonsyste
Sean and Simon,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 01:17:30PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > In the cases where the regression was accidental, ideally, the answer
> > would be someone calmly and politely offering a tested patch, but it
> > sadly seems equally likely to result in hostility, and I think it's
>
Hello,
On Tue 15 Dec 2020 at 11:14AM GMT, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Sean and Simon,
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 01:17:30PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > In the cases where the regression was accidental, ideally, the answer
>> > would be someone calmly and politely offering a tested patch, but it
>>
❦ 15 décembre 2020 11:14 GMT, Mark Hindley:
>> Okay, great, I now see a clearer argument in favour of dropping the init
>> script: enabling the maintainer to preemptively avoid dealing with bugs
>> which are likely to generate hostility, rather than just the idea that
>> there could be bugs which
I had a great discussion with Mark Hindley about this issue a few months
ago.
I'd like to summarize what I said in that discussion as input to the TC.
But I'd also like to start out by reminding us all what we said in the
GR text that we agreed to.
As one of the contributors to that text, you m
6 matches
Mail list logo
