In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "Darren" == Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> I was talking with one such human in IRC today and he basicly
Darren> said he'd get chewed out since there is no policy to reject
Darren> packages because t
Darren Benham writes ("Proposal: Reject packages that violate policy"):
...
> I have just heard that, as strange as it sounds, it's not part of
> policy to reject a package from incoming that violates policy.
> THEREFORE, I propose that it be made part of policy to reject
On 13-Oct-98 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> commitment to be developers. After all, this additional 20hours/weeks
> ought to be good for _some_ privileges ;-)
>
20 hours? Only 20 hours a week ;)
=
* http://benham.net/in
Hi,
>>"Michael" == Michael Bramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> [1 ]
Michael> On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 11:41:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Seconds
>> developers may second the issue by emailing "seconded" to the
>> BTS. (Issue: what if the so called seconder is not a registere
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 11:41:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Seconds
> developers may second the issue by emailing "seconded" to the
> BTS. (Issue: what if the so called seconder is not a registered
> Debian developer?)
the 'Seconds' process is not so imp
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> On 13-Oct-98 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am inclined to trust the current method of having a human
>> actually do rejects. The afore mentioned human may, of course, use
>> the services of lintian in deciding whether or not to
On 13-Oct-98 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am inclined to trust the current method of having a human
> actually do rejects. The afore mentioned human may, of course, use
> the services of lintian in deciding whether or not to reject the
> package; I would be inclined to support a policy v
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> [Manoj: I'm still a little lost on your BTS-proposal system.
Darren> I you want to walk me though it, I'll redo this, contact me
Darren> via private email or IRC]
This is simple enough that I am including this here.
Darren Benham writes:
> I have just heard that, as strange as it sounds, it's not part of policy
> to reject a package from incoming that violates policy. THEREFORE, I
> propose that it be made part of policy to reject from incoming packages
> that contain policy errors and that the standard of me
Darren Benham wrote:
> I have just heard that, as strange as it sounds, it's not part of policy to
> reject a package from incoming that violates policy. THEREFORE, I propose
> that
> it be made part of policy to reject from incoming packages that contain policy
> errors and that the standard of
[Manoj: I'm still a little lost on your BTS-proposal system. I you want to
walk me though it, I'll redo this, contact me via private email or IRC]
I have just heard that, as strange as it sounds, it's not part of policy to
reject a package from incoming that violates policy. THEREFORE, I propos
11 matches
Mail list logo
