>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> Is there any way we could make it possible to second by
Anthony> Cc'ing a GPG signed mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony> (And probably [EMAIL PROTECTED], too, to remove a second)
Anthony> Probably, this could be done by redirecting [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 11:05:30AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> However, the summary really needs to be done differently; preferrably in a
> more automated way (gathering seconds is particularly annoying).
Is there any way we could make it possible to second by Cc'ing a GPG signed
mail to [EMAIL PROT
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I guess this could be the bailliwick of the person niminally
> in charge, since it is unfair to put this additional task on Joey
> Hess (he has better things to do, maybe).
Well the only reason I stopped doing it was being pressed for time around
the beginning
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Okay, let me step in here and stir up the fire. What Ian is running into
>> here seems to be that some bugs just aren't `sexy' enough for lack of a
>> better term. If a proposal is obvi
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, let me step in here and stir up the fire. What Ian is running into
> here seems to be that some bugs just aren't `sexy' enough for lack of a
> better term. If a proposal is obviously correct there is no discussion
> and will die silently unless
Previously Steve Greenland wrote:
> Ian, this is completely unacceptable. Most of these proposals were
> closed [REJECTED] because they failed to attract sufficient support in
> the policy group, according to the system proposed by Manoj Srivasta
> and accepted by the participants in the policy gro
On 21-Mar-00, 17:18 (CST), Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[Ian Jackson unilaterally overrules the entire policy group]
Ian, this is completely unacceptable. Most of these proposals were
closed [REJECTED] because they failed to attract sufficient support in
the policy group
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 11094
Bug#11094: [REJECTED] Policy should mention that serial lines require
UUCP-style locking
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> reopen 20373
Bug#20373: [REJECTED] shouldn't start init scripts in wrong runlevel
Bug reopened, originator no
8 matches
Mail list logo
