On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:06:13PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Ian Jackson dixit:
> >But our one un-shirkable responsibility is that of creating an
> >environment where *others* can contribute.
@Ian: I really like that quote that could define a modernised Debian.
> Oh, sorry, but, I disagre
On 2019-06-04 17:51:56, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 2019/06/03 10:40, Daniel Lange wrote:
> > To do better, we should really offer SMTP submission/IMAP services for
> > @debian.org as soon as possible and - after a grace period - publish a
> > mx -all SPF record.
>
> I would certainly make us
I think such a GR would be a collosal waste of time. This issue is
not important enough. In particular, because the consensus is *not*
GR's can be man made a collosal waste of time.
Well, a GR can be quick and it would help to know where people stand
instead of having a few vocal people decid
I definitely think that we should use GRs more. I think that the DPL
can use their power to propose GRs to put a GR on the table with the
common set of ballot options in a way that I hope might be seen as
facilitating a discussion rather than trying to override people.
I absolutely am happy usin
Hi
On 2019/06/03 10:40, Daniel Lange wrote:
We (debian/DSA) do not provide email hosting. We provide email
forwarding.
DSA should re-evaluate that.
I strongly support this.
I recall this being an issue during debconf 15 and 16 orga, and the
situation has only gotten worse since.
To do be
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: ZFS in Buster"):
> Ian, the zfs maintainers have definitely been working in good faith
...
> There has been no hiding here.
OK, good. Thank you. I am very glad to hear that I got the wrong end
of the stick.
I wrote that mail yesterday so I could sleep on it. Today I go
❦ 4 juin 2019 15:47 +01, Ian Jackson :
> If not, how do you think the question you pose should be answered ?
> Since it is a question of tradeoffs, with no definite right or wrong
> answer, perhaps we should hold a GR ? What do you think the result of
> such a GR would be ?
>
> I think such a G
Ian Jackson dixit:
>There is QA work on the many packages with no specific maintainer;
Sure, in that case I’ll have to take it over or deal with it.
>there are cross-archive campaigns such as reproducible builds,
>architecture support, init system diversity, i18n/l10n, and so on.
These are done
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 02:27:03PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> No. A maintainer normally deals with their own packages, or with
> .dsc and debdiff, for NMU. (This is also an answer to the reply
> from wrar. Oh, jonas also said so, reloading the list index page.)
A maintainer normally deals with
In our code of conduct we all made a commitment to start by assuming
good faith of of our community.
I'd like to remind us all to do that.
Ian, the zfs maintainers have definitely been working in good faith.
There was an unblock request filed May 9 attempting to address this
issue.
If you had
Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH"):
> No. A maintainer normally deals with their own packages, or with
> .dsc and debdiff, for NMU. (This is also an answer to the reply
> from wrar. Oh, jonas also said so, reloading the list index page.)
"Maintainer" is precisely
Sam Hartman dixit:
>He doesn't actually make that argument.
Hmm. Right, he doesn’t spell it out, but I got the impression.
Perhaps my reading was wrong.
>There are several reasons for not using dh we've already identified.
Sure… but…
>The fun factor is important.
… that.
>My reading of the com
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:10:38PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > I’d also throw in that monocultures are not good, and that people in
> > > general are happier when they aren’t forced into anything.
> > Yet people in general are also happier when they don't need to learn
> > all ways to do
> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes:
Jonas> Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2019-06-04 15:58:33)
>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:37:46PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> > I’d also throw in that monocultures are not good, and that
>> people in > general are happier when they aren’t
> "Thorsten" == Thorsten Glaser writes:
Thorsten> I would very much like to argue that not using dh is not a
Thorsten> bug, but Joey Hess, with his credentials ☺, did that
Thorsten> already (and much better than I could):
Thorsten> http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/80_percent/
He
Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2019-06-04 15:58:33)
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:37:46PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > I’d also throw in that monocultures are not good, and that people in
> > general are happier when they aren’t forced into anything.
> Yet people in general are also happier when
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:37:46PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I’d also throw in that monocultures are not good, and that people
> in general are happier when they aren’t forced into anything.
Yet people in general are also happier when they don't need to learn all
ways to do something.
> Just
I would very much like to argue that not using dh is not a bug,
but Joey Hess, with his credentials ☺, did that already (and much
better than I could):
http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/80_percent/
tl;dr: dh started as 80% solution, it’s maybe an 96% solution now,
but it’s not intended as, and won’t b
Mo Zhou writes ("Re: ZFS in Buster"):
> I made a mistake at this point. There is no SIMD bug in zfs
> 0.7.12-2. The true bug lies in the stable kernel update that
> breaks stuff. We debian ZoL maintainers decided to do nothing
> before the Buster release, and file an RC bug against the
> kernel whe
19 matches
Mail list logo
