On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:06:19AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> And I believe that the Vancouver proposal, if implemented as intended up
> to now, will not only affect what Debian really *is*, but in some ways
> will *destroy* what Debian is.
Debian has already decided to destroy what it is by g
Sven Luther wrote:
>Still i believe i have made some constructive proposals, and even if my
>first posts may have been a bit too aggressive, for which i apologize,
>or too many, i think it is also a prove of the passion which lies on
>this issue. Something which has the potential to affect many of
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:34:00PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
> > who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
>
>
> I can't agree more. What I have seen up to now is make me very
> sad. Seein
> I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
> who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
I can't agree more. What I have seen up to now is make me very
sad. Seeing Sven considering to resign is sad news for me.
I won't play the "others star
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Maybe, if one would reply to all mails you send out, one wouldn't have
> time for ANY other Debian work. For example, you contributed 75 mails[1]
> within 24 hours to the Vancouver thread, consisting (excluding quoted
> text)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:45:10PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Thanks. Maybe i should resign from my debian duties then since i am not
> > wanted. Do you volunteer to take over my packages ? Please handle parted for
> > which i am
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Thanks. Maybe i should resign from my debian duties then since i am not
> wanted. Do you volunteer to take over my packages ? Please handle parted for
> which i am searching a co-maintainer since > 6 month, and take over the
> powerpc k
Dear, all,
> [...]
I'm quite unhappy that this thread has turned so bad. Please, all of us
who are part of this thread, can we please try to get the heat out.
I think we all are happy that ftp-masters and -assistents are currently
working on reducing the NEW queue to a reasonable size. This wi
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:20:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Anyway, regarding kernels: I can imagine sometimes, especially with the
> > backlog we have currently, a swift processing of some kernel package
> > might be warranted and help Sarge. If there is such a case, it would
> > help if some
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:10:34PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:20:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Anyway, regarding kernels: I can imagine sometimes, especially with the
> > > backlog we have currently, a swift processing of some kernel package
> > > might be warr
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> [ Please followup to the right list depending on the contents of your
> reply. Be aware I'm not subscribed to -kernel, so Cc me if needed ]
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:14:37AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > [huge rant about
[ Please followup to the right list depending on the contents of your
reply. Be aware I'm not subscribed to -kernel, so Cc me if needed ]
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:14:37AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> [huge rant about NEW and hurting kernel stuff etc etc]
Three remarks:
> Rejecting those would l
12 matches
Mail list logo
