On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:50:29PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> For example if the
> release team did not add some requirement because they didn't believe
> it was a best practice, I would find that problematic.
Let's rephrase that to be even simpler: if there was something in policy
that the relea
Title: q6iLhFjf
It's a pleasure Debian-policy HTv We've been cut off VIGwq
ogdp Good luck! m Debian-policy Fancy that! XkTQZ
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> Then we need to get rid of the "serious" severity in the
Branden> BTS, or redefine it to omit any mention of Debian Policy.
Branden> As long as that severity exists in its current form,
Branden> Policy *will*
> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:02:44PM -0400, Sam Hartman
Anthony> wrote:
>> I'd see it as a problem if there were some best practice in
>> policy that was implemented by a good fraction of the packages
>> but the release team were
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 01:18:33 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:41:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Again: there is _no_ need to think of policy as a stick to beat
>> people over the head with. We're _all_ sensible people who want to
>> make Debian
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:41:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Again: there is _no_ need to think of policy as a stick to beat people
> over the head with. We're _all_ sensible people who want to make Debian
> the highest quality software distribution in existance, even if we
> might disagree on
7 matches
Mail list logo
