Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 11:31:27PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Please don't answer when you don't have read the whole thread... It was
>> already very clearly mentioned that the team decided to file with
>> severity important instead...
>
> Please don't CC me on replies, I am
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 11:31:27PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Please don't answer when you don't have read the whole thread... It was
> already very clearly mentioned that the team decided to file with
> severity important instead...
Please don't CC me on replies, I am subscribed.
cheers,
Michae
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 06:39:15PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> I don't agree with this. In a team, it's difficult to notice that one
>> member disappeared. And lack of involvement in one package doesn't mean
>> being completely MIA. As co-maintainer I wouldn't want to re
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 06:39:15PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I don't agree with this. In a team, it's difficult to notice that one
> member disappeared. And lack of involvement in one package doesn't mean
> being completely MIA. As co-maintainer I wouldn't want to remove someone
> if I'm not
At least use important. I actually don't care, if there is a bug or not for
the issue. But I do care about the testing migration. We do have DDs, who are
doing work only during the weekend (which is perfectly acceptable). So if you
write an RC bug on monday, this might hold up the testing migr
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:39:15 pm Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Nico Golde wrote:
> > > To make sure packages don't end up with only inactive (co-)maintainers.
> >
> > That could be avoided if you check that every maintainer of
> > the package is MIA.
>
> A MIA-check is not something i
Steffen Joeris wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:39:15 pm Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Nico Golde wrote:
To make sure packages don't end up with only inactive (co-)maintainers.
>>> That could be avoided if you check that every maintainer of
>>> the package is MIA.
>> A MIA-check
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:39:15 pm Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Nico Golde wrote:
> > > To make sure packages don't end up with only inactive (co-)maintainers.
> >
> > That could be avoided if you check that every maintainer of
> > the package is MIA.
>
> A MIA-check is not something i
On Saturday 8 December 2007 18:20, Luk Claes wrote:
> Nico Golde wrote:
> > Hi Mario,
> > * Mario Iseli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-06 21:33]:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Team maintenance
> >>
> >> If one package of the person is maintained in a team, at the step where
> >> we send the pro
Hi Raphael,
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 18:42]:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Nico Golde wrote:
> > > To make sure packages don't end up with only inactive (co-)maintainers.
> >
> > That could be avoided if you check that every maintainer of
> > the package is MIA.
>
> A MIA-check
Nico Golde wrote:
> Hi Luk,
> * Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 18:21]:
>> Nico Golde wrote:
>>> Hi Mario,
>>> * Mario Iseli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-06 21:33]:
> [...]
>>> What is the purpose of this? If the package is well
>>> maintained I think it's really
>>> questionable that
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Nico Golde wrote:
> > To make sure packages don't end up with only inactive (co-)maintainers.
>
> That could be avoided if you check that every maintainer of
> the package is MIA.
A MIA-check is not something instantaneous. It takes several months. So
it's not really possibl
Hi Luk,
* Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-08 18:21]:
> Nico Golde wrote:
> > Hi Mario,
> > * Mario Iseli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-06 21:33]:
[...]
> > What is the purpose of this? If the package is well
> > maintained I think it's really
> > questionable that an inactive co-maintainer
Nico Golde wrote:
> Hi Mario,
> * Mario Iseli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-06 21:33]:
> [...]
>> Team maintenance
>>
>> If one package of the person is maintained in a team, at the step where we
>> send
>> the prod-mail we file a Bug of severity "serious" against the package,
>>
Hi Mario,
* Mario Iseli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-06 21:33]:
[...]
> Team maintenance
>
> If one package of the person is maintained in a team, at the step where we
> send
> the prod-mail we file a Bug of severity "serious" against the package,
> requesting that the person is
15 matches
Mail list logo
