On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:48:53 +1100, Matthew Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've seen no hesitation inducting new AMs, and I got solicited to be part of
>the security team a couple of years ago which suggests that they're not
>particularly picky about who they let in .
A couple of years ago, we
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:26:58PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:18:54 -0500, David Nusinow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
> >> current
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
>> current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
>> be available.
>
> Why can't porters
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:54:34 +0100, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
>> No testing, no release, no security support. For me, that is so close
>> to "not support at all" that I hardly see the difference.
>
>No testing and release support b
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:18:54 -0500, David Nusinow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
>> current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
>> b
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:18, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
> > current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
> > be available.
>
> Why
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
> current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
> be available.
Why can't porters join the security team? Then everyone benefits.
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
>> No testing, no release, no security support. For me, that is so close
>> to "not support at all" that I hardly see the difference.
>
> No testing and release support by the current RMs and no security
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
> David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> > On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >> Not when the alternate choice is to not have Debian support $ARCH at
> >> all.
> >
> > Please cite where this was proposed. I read the orig
9 matches
Mail list logo
