On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 08:46:42AM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> I suggest that next time you want to discuss relationship of the
> packaging-dev package, especially if you don't intend to follow most
> people advices or vote, you just skip debian-devel from the discussion.
I think the approach has
Hi,
Here is an attempt at summarizing & building a proposal out of the
"Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal"
thread that was started at [1].
The following aims at being written in a form suitable for inclusion in
developers-reference.
-
Hi,
thanks for the proposal. It looks good, generally speaking and being in
consent with the previous discussion we had. Some minor tweaks:
On 23.10.2012 11:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 1. Someone opens an ITO (Intent to Orphan) bug against the package whose
>orphaning is suggested, with the
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> The following aims at being written in a form suitable for inclusion in
> developers-reference.
Thanks for this summary ... and patch then!
> The NMU procedure (described in developers-reference section 5.11)
> enables other contr
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is an attempt at summarizing & building a proposal out of the
> "Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal"
> thread that was started at [1].
>
> The following aims at being written in a fo
On 2012-10-23, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is an attempt at summarizing & building a proposal out of the
> "Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal"
> thread that was started at [1].
Some years ago, people used a much simpler process. Why complicate
matters
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 05:19:37 PM Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-10-23, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is an attempt at summarizing & building a proposal out of the
> > "Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal"
> > thread that was started at [1].
>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > 4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by
> >retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly.
> I fear a bit the situation "nobody care enough to comment", being
> interpreted as lack of conse
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:19:37PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> 1) report a bug 'should this package be orphaned?' against the package
> with a more or less defalut templated text and a serious severity
> 2) sleep 4*7*24*3600
> 3) if bug silent, orphan it (and maybe adopt it)
According to the inte
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:19:37PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> 1) report a bug 'should this package be orphaned?' against the
>package
>> with a more or less defalut templated text and a serious severity
>> 2) sleep 4*7*24*3600
>> 3) if bug silent, orphan it (and ma
Le Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> The following aims at being written in a form suitable for inclusion in
> developers-reference.
Hi Lucas,
first of all, thank you for the summary. At the end, the final text may not
please everybody, but my feeling is that
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > 4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by
> > >retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly.
>
> > I fear a bit the situa
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:32:25PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I don't object to ACKs, but the requirement to get a certain ACK/NACK ratio.
> I see risk of this devolving into a popularity contest.
>
> I think it should either be unanimous or there is a dispute that the tech
> ctte needs
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 08:36:37AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> ACK and NACK is jargon that is not obvious to everybody, and in my impression
> it sounds like an invitation to not explain one's position. I propose that
> you
> rephrase with more common words, such as "support or object".
ACK ;
On 2012-10-23, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Otherwise stated, the proposal is *exactly* what you're proposing, plus
> some consensus-based best practice to deal with the missing "else"
> branch of your point (3).
seriously. if it is exactly what I'm proposing, then why does it have to
be written u
On 10/24/2012 11:55 AM, Bart Martens wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 01:40:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I fear a bit the situation "nobody care enough to comment", being
interpreted as lack of consensus. But I do think in that case we should
_eventually_ allow the orphaning to happen (after
16 matches
Mail list logo
