On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 04:56:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's reasonable. I don't agree, but enough other people seem to that
> it'll probably happen anyway. And I don't think it'll be harmful.
>
> It's only justification for not using "must" and "should" to indicate
> RCness, though; [.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 06:37:03PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 12:35:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > aj, who'd rather relying on things that are objectively verifiable, rather
> > than oracles like the policy editor or the release manager
> You can expect peopl
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 06:03:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Julian> - there's no longer a suggestion of using policy as anything other
> Julian> than a set of guidelines
> Is that really the case? I certainly do not find th
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 06:03:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Julian> - there's no longer a suggestion of using policy as anything other
> Julian> than a set of guidelines
>
> Is that really the case? I certainly do not find that I treat
> Policy as a guideline, to be followed or
On 20010416T104914+0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Did the ftpadmins ever consider the possibility of running lintian on
> packages before allowing them into unstable?
I believe that all of us ftpmasters run lintian on new packages as part
of our set of new package checks. The results are then consi
>>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Julian> - MUST and SHOULD change to the universally-recognised IETF meanings
Julian> - the distinction between RC and non-RC bugs is retained clearly
Julian> - it's clear what one ought to do to create a "good" Debian package
Julian>
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 12:35:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> aj, who'd rather relying on things that are objectively verifiable, rather
> than oracles like the policy editor or the release manager
The RFC usages of SHOULD and MUST have spread far beyond the RFCs,
they are popular among gro
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:08:24AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 12:34:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It's only people on -policy that have to realise that MUSTs and SHOULDs
> > don't have the rfc meaning, though, afaics. Violating a MUST in an RFC
> No, it's the reade
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 12:34:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It's only people on -policy that have to realise that MUSTs and SHOULDs
> don't have the rfc meaning, though, afaics. Violating a MUST in an RFC
No, it's the readers/users of Policy. And they are the ones who have
been getting confu
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 01:05:02PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [010416 05:54]:
> > > Does that possibility satisfy everyone:
> > > - MUST and SHOULD change to the universally-recognised IETF meanings
> > It's still not clear why this would be a Good Thing.
> I like Julian's suggest
* Anthony Towns [010416 05:54]:
> > Does that possibility satisfy everyone:
> > - MUST and SHOULD change to the universally-recognised IETF meanings
>
> It's still not clear why this would be a Good Thing.
>
> The only real reason I've seen is that it's confusing people (and then,
> it's not app
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:38:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:49:14AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:16:24AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > I guess there are two conflicting desires here:
> > > (1) The Acting Release Manager's desire to h
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:49:14AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:16:24AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I guess there are two conflicting desires here:
> > (1) The Acting Release Manager's desire to have it clear what
> > constitutes an RC bug.
> > (2) Developers' de
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:49:14AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Did the ftpadmins ever consider the possibility of running lintian on
> packages before allowing them into unstable? I vaguely remember that
> being discussed in the past.
(speaking from my experience as ftpadmin in the past)
They
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:16:24AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I guess there are two conflicting desires here:
>
> (1) The Acting Release Manager's desire to have it clear what
> constitutes an RC bug.
>
> (2) Developers' desires to know what "must" be done in all cases and
> what "ough
15 matches
Mail list logo
