On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 09:15:25 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > FAOD I feel very strongly about this. The bug is over a year old.
> > Can the Policy Editors please tell me when it would be apprropiate to
> > escalate this to the TC ?
*Sigh*
> Sorry, I wrot
control: tag -1 -patch +moreinfo
Hello,
On Sun 29 Jul 2018 at 07:35PM +0200, Agustin Henze wrote:
> Hi, I've tried sending this change through salsa but it seems to be disabled
> the option for merge requests.
Yes, there is a process for changing Policy that usually involves
discussion, so we r
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 -patch +moreinfo
Bug #904934 [debian-policy] [debian-policy] Add footnote to find easily the
corresponding days for the urgency field
Removed tag(s) patch.
Bug #904934 [debian-policy] [debian-policy] Add footnote to find easily the
corresponding days for the
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.6.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi, I've tried sending this change through salsa but it seems to be disabled
the option for merge requests. Please find attached a patch for pointing where
to find the days according to the urgency value.
Thanks,
--
TiN
From 2
Stuart Prescott writes:
> This is certainly true for validating parsers, which will need
> modification to stop them complaining about the missing standalone
> License stanza; that's a relatively simple modification to not complain
> if the licence key is within the predefined list from
> /usr/sh
Hi Russ,
> > From my perspective, the brackets are only making work for people who
> > will have to rewrite parsers because the license short names are not the
> > opaque tokens originally given in copyright-format/1.0.*
>
> To be clear, I don't believe there's a way forward here that doesn't
> r
6 matches
Mail list logo
