Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:10:44PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:18:00AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> >> Really? Have you read the message where Luk said that #!/bin/sh
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:10:44PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:18:00AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> Really? Have you read the message where Luk said that #!/bin/sh bugs
> >> using no POSIX features isn't RC? That
The big announcement is coming out very soon and this one is going to
triple in a matter of days. Did they strike the mother load? We can't say.
All we can say for now is that this revelation is going to be huge, and will
cause a rush on this issue. The time to get in is now!
Price: $O.77
P
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This one time, at band camp, Otavio Salvador said:
>>> sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 03:07 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> What's the importance of Debian Policy if RM team can do wh
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:08:48 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the
> DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> Have you read the message where Luk said that #!/bin/sh bugs
>> using no POSIX features isn't RC? That just make me think one thing:
>> "Let's release fast, whatever this means!"
>
> Yes, I read it. Did you actually read what the email you're replying
> to?
I hadn't read the mail. I'm a robot
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:10:44PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > No, it means "Let's release at _some_ point, rather than waiting for
>> > five years". It's not as if we haven't been taking this type
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the
withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the
> > policy package
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:10:44PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, it means "Let's release at _some_ point, rather than waiting for
> > five years". It's not as if we haven't been taking this type of
> > shortcuts for woody and sarge either.
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:18:00AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Really? Have you read the message where Luk said that #!/bin/sh bugs
>> using no POSIX features isn't RC? That just make me think one thi
This one time, at band camp, Otavio Salvador said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This one time, at band camp, Otavio Salvador said:
> >
> >> Why RM team wouldn't use it to meet the deadline and reducing the
> >> overall quality of release?
> >
> > Let's be clear: the RMs don't
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:18:00AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Really? Have you read the message where Luk said that #!/bin/sh bugs
> using no POSIX features isn't RC? That just make me think one thing:
> "Let's release fast, whatever this means!"
No, it means "Let's release at _some_ point, r
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Otavio Salvador said:
>> sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 03:07 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> >> What's the importance of Debian Policy if RM team can do whatever they
>> >> want? How w
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mercredi 25 octobre 2006 à 01:03 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
>> are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
>> removed portions from the policy that
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Debian Project Secretary writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition
> of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee
> delegation"):
>> There are three ways policy can be changed:
>> a) The Technical ctte c
On Oct 26, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I strongly disagree with these changes. The solution is to bring
> the release policy in line with the real policy, not the opposite.
Yes, and let's forget about this "reality" bullshit...
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description:
This one time, at band camp, Otavio Salvador said:
> sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 03:07 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> What's the importance of Debian Policy if RM team can do whatever they
> >> want? How we can ensure that Debian has the minimal quality
Le mercredi 25 octobre 2006 à 01:03 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Here is a first draft of changes to the policy that I think
> are required to bring ot closer in line with extant practice. I
> removed portions from the policy that linked policy violations to bug
> severities, sinc
18 matches
Mail list logo
