On 16 June 2010 03:21, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Tim Retout wrote:
>
>> (Advance warning: I'm interested in discussing the mentoring process
>> at DebConf.)
>
> Please register a BoF in penta about it to give folks more advance warning.
I've now submitted a BoF for DebC
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Tim Retout wrote:
> On 15 June 2010 21:59, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Encouraging maintainers to invest their time in QA
> > makes more sense than adding more NEW packages to become the QA
> > workload of the future. Directing everyone at NEW is counter-productive
> > and
[Jakub Wilk, 2010-06-15]
> I consider QA/adoption uploads without DD assistance unacceptable.
+1
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:59:04 -0700
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:50:28AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for
> > DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2
> > months without a change of maint
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Tim Retout wrote:
> (Advance warning: I'm interested in discussing the mentoring process
> at DebConf.)
Please register a BoF in penta about it to give folks more advance warning.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debi
On 15 June 2010 21:59, Neil Williams wrote:
> Encouraging maintainers to invest their time in QA
> makes more sense than adding more NEW packages to become the QA
> workload of the future. Directing everyone at NEW is counter-productive
> and encourages more horrible first-time packages.
I agree
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:50:28AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM
> upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months
> without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is
> uploaded with the change
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:28:19 +0200
Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Neil Williams , 2010-06-15, 08:50:
> >What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for
> >DM upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months
> >without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned pac
* Neil Williams , 2010-06-15, 08:50:
What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable for DM
upload, including those which have been orphaned for over 2 months
without a change of maintainer? Maybe when an orphaned package is
uploaded with the change of maintainer to Debian QA, the
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:12:22 +0200
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Am 15.06.2010 09:50, schrieb Neil Williams:
>
> > OTOH if those requesting sponsorship were more open to packaging some of
> > the orphaned packages listed under WNPP and qa.debian.org which
> > have already been thro
Hi!
Am 15.06.2010 09:50, schrieb Neil Williams:
> OTOH if those requesting sponsorship were more open to packaging some of
> the orphaned packages listed under WNPP and qa.debian.org which
> have already been through NEW
[..]
> What about if Debian QA packages were all to be deemed suitable
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:03:33 +0200
Vincent Danjean wrote:
> On 11/06/2010 09:54, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Right, I was being silly. Also, the word "experimental" adds more fear
> > to the user than just "devel", which is good. Let me rephrase then. How
> > about we accept MORE packages with LESS
On 11/06/2010 09:54, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Right, I was being silly. Also, the word "experimental" adds more fear
> to the user than just "devel", which is good. Let me rephrase then. How
> about we accept MORE packages with LESS checks in Experimental, and have
> new maintainers forced in that r
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:17:00AM +0200, Andreas Marschke wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 00:58 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:01:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >
> > > My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind
> > > the Nokia n900 that is Debi
On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:17, Andreas Marschke wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 00:58 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:01:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>>> My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind
>>> the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 00:58 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:01:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind
> > the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a "devel"
> > repository that includes apps th
Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 06:01 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind
>> the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a "devel"
>> repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily
I'm not still a DD, and I would like to have an easier way to get my
packages into Debian. But I'm afraid by opening up the experimental
section, quality will be sacrificed. Just look at quality of some
packages in universe of Ubuntu. Some of them even don't have a
reasonable summary!
On Fri, Jun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/10/2010 06:01 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind
> the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a "devel"
> repository that includes apps that
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> My sponsoring preferences are available from
> http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/debian-sponsoring.html >. To
> make sure I have direct contact with the prospective package
> maintainer and avoid a backlog of packages I should have sponsored, I
> want to be contacted o
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:01:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> My 2nd suggestion is coming from the Maemo platform (the OS behind
> the Nokia n900 that is Debian based). In Maemo, there is a "devel"
> repository that includes apps that aren't necessarily in good shape. The
> users know that fact when
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:13:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Sometimes the package is beyond my skill level (such as Java or
> complicated maintainer scripts) or written in languages I strongly
> dislike (PHP), which means I review part of the package and will not
> sponsor it.
---end quoted text--
Firstly, 7 days is a very short period of time to be waiting for
sponsorship, some have been waiting since 2006.
About your two packages:
autotrash: sounds like the functionality should be part of GNOME/KDE,
please talk to upstream about moving it there.
ardentryst: seems like a good fit for the
Hello,
Il giorno gio, 10/06/2010 alle 09.31 +1000, Craig Small ha scritto:
> That's exactly how I work when sponsoring packages. I look after 7 of
> them and all 7 have a reason for being there. There is only 9 packages
> that are asking for sponsors.
>
> Whereas for me that would be my worst ni
Il giorno mer, 09/06/2010 alle 18.12 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ha
scritto:
> I don't think you are going to get a lot of traction for any proposal that
> removes a DD from the upload process.
>
> So, lack of free DDs will always be a potential issue. I suggest you
> encourage people to beco
Hello,
Il giorno mer, 09/06/2010 alle 22.44 +, Sune Vuorela ha scritto:
> When I'm sponsoring packages, which happens from time to time, it is
> normally packages that I somehow have a interest in.
> I think that many other sponsors feel it the same way.
Sure and I'm agree about that.
> For
Hi all,
I'm a simple debian contributor: I'm trying to get my work in debian
through a sponsor [1] [2]. The problem is that I'm waiting for a sponsor
since 7 days+ (and not only me, in mentors.debian.net there are 20+
pending packages) [3]. Why are they in pending status and nobody wants
to upload
27 matches
Mail list logo
