On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You and others are most welcome to take a stab at the 1000 open bugs
> > against the official kdepackages.
>
> "You and others" cannot substitute for a response *from the package
> maintainer* acknowledging (o
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 10:35:48PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> OK. But is there not a fairly sizeable team working on KDE packaging
> for Debian?
No. FYI, the KDE team is currently about 6 *active* members, 3 working
a lot and 3-4 working when they have some free time. Last kde 3.5.6 ha
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:03:17AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >
> > Seriously, do you think that the number of bug reports you receive is
> > justification to not answer them?
>
> errrm, let me think. YES !
>
> There is a thing to know about bugs, answering "hey, I got your mail"
>
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:55:39AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> And btw, help for bug triaging for any of those kind of packages is
> vastly appreciated... But here is a newsflash: 100 bugs is fairly easy
> to reduce. the 5 or 600 bugs the KDE team has closed was a year of work.
> Yes a dam
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 19:13:09 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Guillem Jover:
> > The resulting .changes will get a field like this:
> >
> > Source: bacula (1.38.11-7)
> >
> > which can be used to track back from which source this binary
> > originated.
>
> Yeah, but this only helps if you've g
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 21:11 -0500, root wrote:
> ... ackowledging their part of the process of software development and
> not
> treating them with distrain. If you treat them well, by acknowleding
> their bug reports and -- $DEITY forgive -- saying you are working on
> it, ...
In fact, acknowledgi
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 07:27:29PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:12:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > You and others are most welcome to take a stab at the 1000 open bugs
> > > against the official kdepackages.
> >
> >
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:51:17PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 01:45:28AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > On 2007-02-26, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have to completely disagree here. When I started in earnest with the
> > > effort to clean up
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:36:21PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 07:27:29PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> >
> > And what he's telling you, and what I'm telling you, is that it's a
> > completely crap criterion for those of us who deal with massive packagesets
> > like
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 01:45:28AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2007-02-26, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have to completely disagree here. When I started in earnest with the
> > effort to clean up the sasl package, I literally spent three twelve hour
> > days in a row doi
On 2007-02-26, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to completely disagree here. When I started in earnest with the
> effort to clean up the sasl package, I literally spent three twelve hour
> days in a row doing nothing but bug triage. I really am not surprised
> that people ha
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:36:13AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> If a maintainer keeps doing uploads we can be almost sure that he is not
> "ignoring" bugs too.
> Providing an useful answer to a bug requires proper bug triage, which
> requires time.
Right. Which means that it should not be igno
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:12:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > the criterion being discussed here: not a resolution for the
> > reported bug, but rather a first response from the package
> > maintainer to the bug report, to acknowledge that it has not b
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 07:27:29PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>
> And what he's telling you, and what I'm telling you, is that it's a
> completely crap criterion for those of us who deal with massive packagesets
> like KDE. Simply replying to a bug won't get it fixed any sooner or
> decrease the
On Feb 26, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "You and others" cannot substitute for a response *from the package
> maintainer* acknowledging (or otherwise) the bug report. That's the
> criterion being discussed here: not a resolution for the reported bug,
> but rather a first response from t
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 07:27:29PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:12:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > You and others are most welcome to take a stab at the 1000 open bugs
> > > against the official kdepackages.
> >
> >
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:12:43AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You and others are most welcome to take a stab at the 1000 open bugs
> > against the official kdepackages.
>
> "You and others" cannot substitute for a response *from the package
> maintai
Sune Vuorela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You and others are most welcome to take a stab at the 1000 open bugs
> against the official kdepackages.
"You and others" cannot substitute for a response *from the package
maintainer* acknowledging (or otherwise) the bug report. That's the
criterion bei
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Package name: resiprocate
Version : 1.1rc1
Upstream Author : ReSIProcate Developers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL : http://www.resiprocate.org
License : Vovida Software License v. 1.0 (3-c
On 2007-02-25, Nikita V. Youshchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do people look on the following idea: not allow packages to migrate=20
> from sid to testing if they have unanswered bug reports with severity >=3D=
>=20
> normal?
Why not put resources on helping people with the bugs instead o
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package name: islsm
Version : git-20061017
Upstream Author : Jean-Baptiste Note, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Feyd,
Denis Vlasenko, Martin Langer <[EM
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 08:30:40AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Nikita wrote "unanswered", you seem to have misread that as "unfixed".
>
> I believe Nikita is proposing a way to focus on the lack of *any
> response* by the package maintainer to particular bug reports, not the
> lack of fixes.
>
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:26:45PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > What do people look on the following idea: not allow packages to
> > migrate from sid to testing if they have unanswered bug reports
> > with severity >= normal?
>
> Bad id
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/25/07 14:33, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
> Dear Steve Langasek, you wrote:
>
>>> The intention here is to use size_t in situations where the value is known
>>> to be non-negative.
>> I don't see any reason why you should use size_t for that instead
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:26:45PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> Hello.
>
> What do people look on the following idea: not allow packages to migrate
> from sid to testing if they have unanswered bug reports with severity >=
> normal?
>
> I guess it may be difficult to analyse automatica
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:26:45PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> Hello.
>
> What do people look on the following idea: not allow packages to migrate
> from sid to testing if they have unanswered bug reports with severity >=
> normal?
>
I do not think this is a good idea. Some packages
Dear Steve Langasek, you wrote:
> > The intention here is to use size_t in situations where the value is known
> > to be non-negative.
>
> I don't see any reason why you should use size_t for that instead of
> unsigned int. size_t is intended for use in describing the size of objects
> in memory
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:26:45PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> What do people look on the following idea: not allow packages to migrate
> from sid to testing if they have unanswered bug reports with severity >=
> normal?
Honestly, this would kill almost any larger package.
The problem
Hello.
What do people look on the following idea: not allow packages to migrate
from sid to testing if they have unanswered bug reports with severity >=
normal?
I guess it may be difficult to analyse automatically what is 'unanswered'
(because there could be follow-ups by submitter and other
gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:27:26 -0200, Fernando M.M. wrote:
>
>
>> Althought i have already seen some old discussion about packing the
>> webmail Roundcube (1) i have not found the package using the
>> package search (2).
>>
> [..]
>
>> Is someone working on it?
>>
On 24 Feb 2007, at 12:44 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strangely, I feel a tiny pang of guilt. I now have an apple box
for the first time in decades. One of the main deciding factors
was to
buy unixy goodness :-)
That was my main reason for buying an Apple four or so years ago.
but also
31 matches
Mail list logo
