Le Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 08:40:57PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> On 25/07/11 at 04:25 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This bug came up for discussion this evening at DebConf; I think it's
> > overdue to be followed through on. Lucas seems to agree in the end with my
> > own be
On 07/26/2011 12:21 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 04:25:58AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hello,
This bug came up for discussion this evening at DebConf; I think
it's overdue to be followed through on. Lucas seems to agree in
the end with my own believe that there is a weak
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:21:48AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Any offline discussion about policy should be ignored, as a matter of
> principle. If Lucas want to say something, he can just post it there.
He did, that's what I was referring to.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a l
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 04:25:58AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This bug came up for discussion this evening at DebConf; I think it's
> overdue to be followed through on. Lucas seems to agree in the end with my
> own believe that there is a weak consensus in favor of the proposed pol
On 25/07/11 at 04:25 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This bug came up for discussion this evening at DebConf; I think it's
> overdue to be followed through on. Lucas seems to agree in the end with my
> own believe that there is a weak consensus in favor of the proposed policy,
> and it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 at 04:25:58 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Index: pkgs.dbk
> ===
> --- pkgs.dbk (revision 8898)
> +++ pkgs.dbk (working copy)
> @@ -1947,6 +1947,11 @@
>
>
>
>
Hello,
This bug came up for discussion this evening at DebConf; I think it's
overdue to be followed through on. Lucas seems to agree in the end with my
own believe that there is a weak consensus in favor of the proposed policy,
and it does effectively reflect current practice, so I think applying
On 07/05/11 at 00:08 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 11:31:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I just sent a mail to -devel@ to gather more feedback about the change.
>
> Let's see where that thread will be going then, thanks.
So, apparently, I'm a bit alone on the "c
On 06/05/11 at 20:59 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:44:47PM +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
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:44:47PM +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-
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
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
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 bugs*”, I got one other report telling that
Debian's GCC 4.6.1 will introduce
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:11:07PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Neil McGovern , 2011-05-03, 13:25:
> >+Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days, without
> >maintainer activity for 7 days: 0 days
> >+
> >+
> >+
> >+
>
> Oh dear, please don't. I strongly object to this change. (I
On 03/05/11 at 22:27 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> [DEP1 drivers CCed].
>
> Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 01:25:49PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> > Package: developers-reference
> > Tags: patch
> >
> > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html
>
> > Index: pkgs.dbk
>
[DEP1 drivers CCed].
Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 01:25:49PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> Package: developers-reference
> Tags: patch
>
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html
> Index: pkgs.dbk
> ===
* Neil McGovern , 2011-05-03, 13:25:
+Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days, without maintainer
activity for 7 days: 0 days
+
+
+
+
Oh dear, please don't. I strongly object to this change. (I always
thought that transient 0-day NMU policy are counter-productive, but
maki
Hi,
Neil McGovern (03/05/2011):
> --- pkgs.dbk (revision 8790)
> +++ pkgs.dbk (working copy)
> @@ -1947,6 +1947,11 @@
>
>
>
> +Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days, without
> maintainer activity for 7 days: 0 days
> +
> +
> +
> +
> Upload fixing only release-critic
Package: developers-reference
Tags: patch
Hi,
As announced in the recent mail[0], please find attached a patch to
dev-ref changing the NMU policy.
Thanks,
Neil
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html
--
dpkg: shut up
No, I won't, and you can't make me. :P
hah.
35 matches
Mail list logo
