On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 06:03:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> This thread started on [EMAIL PROTECTED] The process that should be followed
> for
> 0-day NMUs is being discussed. (reminder: it's allowed to do 0-day NMUs
> for RC bugs and release goals, for bugs older than 7 days).
>
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Richard Hecker wrote:
> Yes, we do have a problem. From section 5.11.1 of our developers
> reference (http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference), the
> admonition is to "contact the developer first, and act later." It
> appears to me that people do not even understand what
Hi,
This thread started on [EMAIL PROTECTED] The process that should be followed for
0-day NMUs is being discussed. (reminder: it's allowed to do 0-day NMUs
for RC bugs and release goals, for bugs older than 7 days).
Please continue the discussion on -devel@, as it's of interest to
everybody.
On
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
If I understand things correctly, we are discussing the NMU of grig by
Cyril (#444509).
..
And that is why I explicitly said my reply was not directed to
any specific person or conversation. I see Bas was able
to understand this.
If a person cannot communica
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 11:03:04AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> No, not really. The post you replied to stated explicitly that it
> wasn't talking about any specific event, just about general procedure.
I think this is a missunderstanding. I asked if there is some general rule
change or if some spe
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 08:50:20AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> If I understand things correctly, we are discussing the NMU of grig by
> Cyril (#444509).
No, not really. The post you replied to stated explicitly that it
wasn't talking about any specific event, just about general procedure.
Hi,
If I understand things correctly, we are discussing the NMU of grig by
Cyril (#444509).
On 16/10/07 at 16:36 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> The rules defined in [1] applied. And instead of pinging the maintainer,
>> waiting, and then uploading (to DELAYED/0), it look
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
The rules defined in [1] applied. And instead of pinging the maintainer,
waiting, and then uploading (to DELAYED/0), it looked like (after
talking with DDs during the BSP I mentioned) that DELAYED/n was a good
means of notifying the maintainer, through the nmudiff sent to t
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> The rules defined in [1] applied. And instead of pinging the maintainer,
Thanks for pointing this rules out to me. I wasn't aware of them.
Now that I know them I feel a bit more wiser.
Regards,
PatricNow that I know them I feel a
Patrick Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (16/10/2007):
> I see that there was some time between bug posting and preparing the
> NMU, so this part of the process is as normal. But is there a specific
> reason to upload to DELAYED/5 instead of DELAYED/7 how the developers
> reference says? Is there som
10 matches
Mail list logo
