to be a community decision.
What do you think why the original submitter wrote to debian-devel?
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:08:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by
>> the PHP PEAR team"):
>&g
On Saturday 02 June 2012 05:36:04 Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 04:43 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > now that I notice the subject change I also notice the original
> > subject...
> >
> > hi Thomas 8-)
>
> LOL !
>
> I'm amazed that it's seems I'm capable of creating huge uncontrollable
> t
On 12-05-31 at 11:05am, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Thanks to Daniel Kahn Gilmore for lending me the bike!
Gillmor. Sorry!
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep pr
On 06/02/2012 04:43 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> now that I notice the subject change I also notice the original subject...
>
> hi Thomas 8-)
>
LOL !
I'm amazed that it's seems I'm capable of creating huge uncontrollable
threads out of nowhere (eg: this isn't the first time).
I swear its never i
On 01.06.2012 21:49, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Jonas Smedegaard
>
> Hiya,
>
>> I am genuinely interested in understanding the reasons for labeling
>> sponsoree rather than sponsor as maintainer. Could you (or anyone)
>> elaborate on that?
>
> If I'm sponsoring a package, it means I've chec
On Friday 01 June 2012 20:08:22 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-06-01 at 06:06pm, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:54:13 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
Hi,
> > > > ...hence the Sponsors (who are also a full-fledged DDs) are
> > > > responsible. It is that simple.
> > >
>
now that I notice the subject change I also notice the original subject...
hi Thomas 8-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206012243.38011.hol...@lay
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:15:47PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Especially do I fail to understand why a member of the TC, who took part
> in such discussions before
> (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg00457.html to name an
> example), and encouraged people to do so (that is how I
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Freitag, 1. Juni 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [...]
>> This is very different from what some people mean when they use the word
>> hijack. In part, I think we have a terminological problem here; I don't
>> know if it's a matter of
Hi,
On Freitag, 1. Juni 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> This is very different from what some people mean when they use the word
> hijack. In part, I think we have a terminological problem here; I don't
> know if it's a matter of non-native speakers using the word differently,
> but the word
]] Jonas Smedegaard
Hiya,
> I am genuinely interested in understanding the reasons for labeling
> sponsoree rather than sponsor as maintainer. Could you (or anyone)
> elaborate on that?
If I'm sponsoring a package, it means I've checked that its quality is
good enough that I consider it a wo
+0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by
> the PHP PEAR team"):
> > A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that they believe
> > they are not answerable to the project's processes fo
On 12-06-01 at 06:06pm, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:54:13 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > ...hence the Sponsors (who are also a full-fledged DDs) are
> > > responsible. It is that simple.
> >
> > If it's really that simple, one should never sponsor a package one
>
On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:54:13 Scott Kitterman wrote:
Hi,
> > ...hence the Sponsors (who are also a full-fledged DDs) are responsible.
> > It is that simple.
>
> If it's really that simple, one should never sponsor a package one doesn't
> care to maintain. If this is the case, we should just
Le Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:47:07AM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli a écrit :
> > Jonas, I think we all agree that the Maintainer should Maintain
> > whatever he signed up to. Non-Debian people have the right to maintain
> > packages through a sponsor, and they are encouraged to. And they are
> > encouraged
> Jonas, I think we all agree that the Maintainer should Maintain
> whatever he signed up to. Non-Debian people have the right to maintain
> packages through a sponsor, and they are encouraged to. And they are
> encouraged to look for a different sponsor if their current one stops
> being responsiv
On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:03:05 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There is no excuse for hijacking a package, ever.
[...]
Hi Steve,
while I really appreciate both your technical work and expertise as
well as your personal care for Debian, this mail didn't go down well
with me, for two reasons:
- It
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:01:51PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 09:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that they
> > believe they are not answerable to the project's processes for how
> > package maintenance is deci
severity 470294 serious
thanks
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> That's a mater of views. #470294 should be made RC IMO.
"somebody should do something" ;-)
> Or is writing to /usr not a good candidate for an RC bug?
> I thought this was a "serious violation of the policy"
On 05/31/2012 10:52 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Please note that "badly maintained" is something quite different from
> "not maintained". AFAICS, the package we are talking about is not
> affected by severe or critical bugs.
That's a mater of views. #470294 should be made RC IMO.
Or is writing to /
On 05/31/2012 04:52 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 31/05/12 16:40, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 08:43 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> I have no intention of spreading or amplifying wrong information.
>>>
>>> Do I understand it correctly that your intention in your original
>>> post was to h
On 05/31/2012 06:25 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 31/05/12 18:15, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>
>> Part of the common and established procedure is to mail d-devel if
>> you intend to hijack a package
>
> True, but it is _not_ common (nor acceptable) to let only 2-3 days for
> the maintainer to reply.
Th
Jonas Smedegaard dijo [Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:52:47PM +0200]:
> > > You avoided my question, it seems: What does "Maintainer:" mean, then?
> >
> > What does "Uploaders:" field mean?
>
> You still avoid my question: What does "Maintainer:" mean?
This is getting silly. Please stop the word-defini
On 31/05/12 18:15, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Part of the common and established procedure is to mail d-devel if
you intend to hijack a package
True, but it is _not_ common (nor acceptable) to let only 2-3 days for
the maintainer to reply.
The rest of the thread raised other questions such as the r
On 05/31/2012 04:57 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 31/05/12 15:11, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 03:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>>> A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that
>>> they believe they are not answerable to the project's processes for
>>> how pack
Hi Thomas,
On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I was asking if it was alright to ask the MIA team to orphan the
> package, yes, because no reply from Jack. Never I wanted to do
> it myself, or take over the package without going through the
> standard procedures.
yes, please do t
On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> You still avoid my question: What does "Maintainer:" mean?
why do you ask rhetoric questions? It's defined in policy and you know it. So
whats the point?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "
On 12-05-31 at 04:43pm, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:15:31 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > [dropping PHP Pear team as cc]
> >
> > On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > > You and a lot of others fail to
On 31/05/12 15:11, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
On 05/31/2012 03:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that
they believe they are not answerable to the project's processes for
how package maintenance is decided. It is antisocial vigilanteism
and
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 03:16:06 PM George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > > responsible for the package.
> >
> > Huh?!?
> >
> > What does "Maintainer:" mean if not the
On 31/05/12 16:40, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 05/31/2012 08:43 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I have no intention of spreading or amplifying wrong information.
Do I understand it correctly that your intention in your original
post was to have the package orphaned and then have a team take
over maint
On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:15:31 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> [dropping PHP Pear team as cc]
>
> On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > > > responsible for the
On 05/31/2012 08:43 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I have no intention of spreading or amplifying wrong information.
>
> Do I understand it correctly that your intention in your original
> post was to have the package orphaned and then have a team take over
> maintainance?
>
I was also pointin
On Thursday 31 May 2012 14:43:00 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-05-31 at 08:02pm, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 05/31/2012 04:36 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Hijacking, in my vocabulary, is when a non-maintainer takes matters
> > > in his/her/their own hands and takes over maintainership witho
[dropping PHP Pear team as cc]
On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > > responsible for the package.
> >
> > Huh?!?
> >
> > What does "Maintainer:" mean if no
On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi,
> > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > responsible for the package.
>
> Huh?!?
>
> What does "Maintainer:" mean if not the entity being responsible for,
> well, maintaining?!?
Who is responsible for the
On 05/31/2012 03:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>[...]
> A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that they believe
> they are not answerable to the project's processes for how package
> maintenance is decided. It is antisocial vigilanteism and it is not
> acceptable.
So asking pe
On 12-05-31 at 08:02pm, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 04:36 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Hijacking, in my vocabulary, is when a non-maintainer takes matters
> > in his/her/their own hands and takes over maintainership without the
> > consent of the former maintainer and outside formal
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the
PHP PEAR team"):
> A hijack is, by definition, a declaration by the hijacker that they believe
> they are not answerable to the project's processes for how package
> maintenance is de
On 05/31/2012 04:36 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hijacking, in my vocabulary, is when a non-maintainer takes matters in
> his/her/their own hands and takes over maintainership without the
> consent of the former maintainer and outside formal Debian procedures.
>
Nobody did that, or had the in
On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> [ Holger, that's fingerpointing. Pointing to how you quickly dealt with
> those packages, thanks again. :-) ]
/me happily fingerpoints back at the release team and esp. KiBi, who greatly
deal with trying to get 1 packages and 1000 people i
Hi Enrico,
On 12-05-31 at 09:19am, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:01:51PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > Did you see me writing "I'd like to hijack php-codesniffer in order
> > to rush and get it into wheezy in time before the freeze"? *NO* ! I
> > didn't write that.
>
> A
Jonas Smedegaard (31/05/2012):
> I have heard before the argument of the sponsor having responsibility,
> but in reality I have *never* heard of sponsors actually being held
> responsible for anything but the concrete upload of a specific
> packaging release.
Suggested reading:
http://bugs.debi
On 12-05-31 at 09:22am, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 11:11 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> It is better to have a well maintained package than to ait for
> somebody who collected a number of NMUs and doesn't react to bug
> reports for years.
I perfectly agree.
But it is better to have re
On 12-05-31 at 10:06am, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:03:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > There is no excuse for hijacking a package, ever.
> > ...
>
> Hmm, this arguing sounds quite German to me. Rules are rules are
> rules and you should not disregard them. So a Germa
Hi Charles,
On 12-05-31 at 08:29am, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:11:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> >
> > *nothing* qualifies for a hijacking.
>
> Dear Jonas,
>
> your reaction seems to imply that hijacking is an implicit statement
> of failure. But this can be
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:03:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There is no excuse for hijacking a package, ever.
> ...
Hmm, this arguing sounds quite German to me. Rules are rules are rules
and you should not disregard them. So a German will wait in front of a
red traffic light even if there
On 05/30/2012 11:11 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-05-30 at 11:30am, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> We aren't kicking him, we want to have the package team maintained.
>> He's fine to come and join!
>
> You want to play by your rules (file), not his. That's kicking to me.
>
>
>> This doesn't rea
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:01:51PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Did you see me writing "I'd like to hijack php-codesniffer in order to rush
> and get it into wheezy in time before the freeze"? *NO* ! I didn't write
> that.
Agreed. I'd have expected people, if anything, to answer suggesting the
On Wed, 30 May 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There is no excuse for hijacking a package, ever.
>
> If the maintainer is MIA, use the MIA process to get the package orphaned.
This goes too far IMO. One of the reasons why the MIA process has been
setup is because many DD fear forcibly taking over o
On 05/31/2012 09:03 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If you're unhappy that the package has been unmaintained for a long time and
> that the MIA process takes time to result in an orphaning... suck it up. If
> it was actually a problem, someone would have noticed it earlier and done
> something about i
Le Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:03:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
>
> As a sitting member of the Technical Committee, I encourage anyone who sees
> a package being hijacked to immediately bring it to the attention of the TC.
> I will without hesitation vote to have the hijacker barred from being
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:29:34AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:11:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> > *nothing* qualifies for a hijacking.
> your reaction seems to imply that hijacking is an implicit statement of
> failure.
There is no excuse for hijacking a
Le Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:11:51AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>
> *nothing* qualifies for a hijacking.
Dear Jonas,
your reaction seems to imply that hijacking is an implicit statement of
failure. But this can be dis-ambiguated by thanking the maintainer for his
past work, bringing the pa
On 12-05-30 at 05:14pm, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:45:22AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I concur. It is socially and technically safer to give about two
> > week-ends to answer, keeping time zones in mind.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=599617 was f
On 12-05-30 at 09:41pm, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 05:11 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > you use Debian freeze as argument for swift takeover. I find it not
> > respectful to rush processing like that!
> >
>
> Again, no! That wasn't my point. My point was that it was left
> unmaint
Hi,
On 30.05.2012 18:17, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 09:41:30PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> By the way, do other think that, even in this case, I should keep the
>> changes
>> as minimum as possible? Or is it ok, considering that all of our
>> toolsets have
>> changed since t
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:45:22AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I concur. It is socially and technically safer to give about two week-ends to
> answer, keeping time zones in mind.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=599617 was filed in 2010, no
answer, ping in 2011, no answer. So
Thomas Goirand writes:
> By the way, do other think that, even in this case, I should keep the
> changes
> as minimum as possible? Or is it ok, considering that all of our
> toolsets have
> changed since the last upload (eg: we now have pkg-php-tools and dh 8
> sequencer), that we do a bit more c
On 05/30/2012 05:11 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> *nothing* qualifies for a hijacking.
>
> With hijacking I mean disrespectful takeover.
>
> Either respect maintainership by only NMUing, or respectfully resolve
> with the Debian community that the current maintainer is unfit for the
> task.
Ok,
On 12-05-30 at 11:30am, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> We aren't kicking him, we want to have the package team maintained.
> He's fine to come and join!
You want to play by your rules (file), not his. That's kicking to me.
> This doesn't really qualify for an NMU, nor does the upgrade to the
> latest
On 05/30/2012 03:51 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I strongly object to this as a general principle: Debian freezing is no
> excuse for hijacking!
>
That's not the reason, the reason is that we've been working on tools to
improve
PHP package quality, and recently noticed that php-codesniffer wa
Le Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:54:32PM +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
>
> Having that said, 5 days of (private) conversation is perhaps really a
> bit too short to hijack a package. I'd expect that process to include
> several weeks of waiting time for an answer at least.
I concur. It is socially and te
Hi,
On 29.05.2012 21:51, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Seems you had several years of solving this issue, yet you waited until
Similarly, the maintainer had 4 years to care about his package.
> Did you consider an NMU?
That might be an alternative, but looking at the current bug list people
will a
On 12-05-30 at 02:49am, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Jack Bates is supposed to maintain php-codesniffer,
[snip]
> this package last upload was from 2008-10-05,
[snip]
> we'd like to see the latest version in Wheezy
[snip]
> We sent a mail 5 days ago to Jack Bates, and he didn't reply. It's
> currently
Hi,
Jack Bates is supposed to maintain php-codesniffer, available from:
http://pear.php.net/package/PHP_CodeSniffer
Unfortunately, the PTS for this package shows that this package last
upload was from 2008-10-05, few months after version 1.1.0 was released
upstream (on the 2008-07-14). Upstream h
66 matches
Mail list logo
