Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes:
> * Russ Allbery [110504 19:33]:
>> They're not helpful if the maintainer already has another fix ready to
>> go, [..]
> In which case the maintainer would have marked the bug pending, and show
> activity, no?
Right. I mean, not always, since people make mist
Hi!
* Russ Allbery [110504 19:33]:
> They're not helpful if the maintainer already has another fix ready to
> go, [..]
In which case the maintainer would have marked the bug pending, and show
activity, no?
Best Regards,
Alexander
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.de
Charles Plessy writes:
> I already received patches that were half-mailquoted, and therefore
> impossible to apply without human editing. I also received dpkg “3.0”
> patches that consist on dozen of lines, just for modifying a single line
> in the upstream sources. Once a NMUer was more helpfu
Le Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:33:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes:
>
> > My main concern is that most NMU workflows are not considering VCSes and
> > therefore not helpful when there is a race condition between the NMUer
> > and the maintainer.
>
> If they follow the stand
Charles Plessy writes:
> My main concern is that most NMU workflows are not considering VCSes and
> therefore not helpful when there is a race condition between the NMUer
> and the maintainer.
If they follow the standard procedure of posting the NMU diff to the bug,
I'm not sure why they wouldn'
On 05/04/2011 11:43 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:58:57AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> On 03/05/11 at 15:38 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> I agree that the resulting wording of patch is suboptimal, and that
>>> recommending 0-day NMUs is not the way to go. We are rarely
Le Wed, May 04, 2011 at 11:09:49AM +0100, Simon McVittie a écrit :
> On Wed, 04 May 2011 at 06:57:13 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I still do not understand why pressure is given to answer in 7 days, which
> > is
> > at most one full week-end, for non-urgent issues.
>
> Rather than pressure to
Le Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:40:18AM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
>
> These are RC bugs. They're urgent issues.
I find these instructions a too dry. I think that not every RC bug is equal in
its nuisance to users or to the releasability of the next stable version.
How about using urgency to det
On 04/05/11 at 15:47 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I think that if you want to change the NMU procedures described in
> > dev-ref, you should at least discuss the proposals in a similar forum
> > than the one where the current reco
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:14:05PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that if you want to change the NMU procedures described in
> dev-ref, you should at least discuss the proposals in a similar forum
> than the one where the current recommendations were discussed, i.e
> debian-devel@ or debian
On 04/05/11 at 13:33 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:31:20PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Didier Raboud (04/05/2011):
> > > The proposed wording doesn't imply this IMHO; I read it as "if you
> > > can't find an action from the maintainer on the buglog in the last 7
>
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:31:20PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Didier Raboud (04/05/2011):
> > The proposed wording doesn't imply this IMHO; I read it as "if you
> > can't find an action from the maintainer on the buglog in the last 7
> > days, you can 0-day NMU".
> >
> > What we want is more
Hi,
Didier Raboud (04/05/2011):
> The proposed wording doesn't imply this IMHO; I read it as "if you
> can't find an action from the maintainer on the buglog in the last 7
> days, you can 0-day NMU".
>
> What we want is more something along the lines of "If the bug is
> older than 7 days without
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:58:57AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 03/05/11 at 15:38 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I agree that the resulting wording of patch is suboptimal, and that
> > recommending 0-day NMUs is not the way to go. We are rarely in need for
> > action in less than a couple of
On Wed, 04 May 2011 at 06:57:13 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I still do not understand why pressure is given to answer in 7 days, which is
> at most one full week-end, for non-urgent issues.
Rather than pressure to answer, I see this as more like "if you're sufficiently
busy with something else
Le mercredi, 4 mai 2011 11.40:18, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:57:13AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:22:46PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> > > Yes. If a maintainer is taking more that for a *RC* bug fix, then they
> > > *should* keep the bugl
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:57:13AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:22:46PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> >
> > Yes. If a maintainer is taking more that for a *RC* bug fix, then they
> > *should* keep the buglog updated with status.
>
> Talking about the GCC 4.6 “*RC b
Hi,
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:20:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 09:00:14PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > So the reason for imposing a length restriction on version numbers in
> > > particular is due to the
On 03/05/11 at 15:38 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I agree that the resulting wording of patch is suboptimal, and that
> recommending 0-day NMUs is not the way to go. We are rarely in need for
> action in less than a couple of days in Debian, so the current policy
> seems fine to me.
I'd like to
19 matches
Mail list logo
