On 31/05/08 at 23:43 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I also stressed that in the intro, and removed the second paragraph of
> > the intro, which didn't really add any value.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > + * If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, h
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 12:50:24AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > - d-d-a is the list that all developers are supposed to be subscribed to,
> > which means that's the list where announcements of general interest
> > *should* go.
> It's not development related tho.
Description of that list
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> It's not development related tho. And most people really don't need to
It is developers related.
And http://lists.debian.org/devel.html reads:
debian-devel-announce: Announcements for developers
> know it. I suppose etc/motd will eventually be up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dropped]
On Sat, 31 May 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think this is a great example of why announcements like this should be
> sent to debian-devel-announce in the first place, instead of being relegated
> to the debian-infrastructure-announce list that most developers aren't
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:18:14PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Because bugs may also have been (or seem to have been overlooked). The
> risk here is that the person doing the NMU thinks "oh, that's an old
> issue and the fix seems so simple" and goes ahead and NMUs it, while
> there may be very va
> Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Heh, eew)
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 08:52:02PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The news are collected on http://wiki.debian.org/DeveloperNews
> Feel free to contribute.
> ~/.ssh/authorized_keys will remain disabled by default
> --
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I also stressed that in the intro, and removed the second paragraph of
> the intro, which didn't really add any value.
Agreed.
> + * If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you
> + tried to contact him? In general it should
On 31/05/08 at 21:02 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> > Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
> > maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...
>
> Sure. For me it is not necessarily about "teams", but more about "active":
On 31/05/08 at 21:33 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > So far, you (in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) and Charles Plessy
> > (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) raised that concern.
>
> Sure, but Steve Langasek, Manoj and Fran
On 31/05/08 at 20:41 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > * Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least on the
> > BTS? Has the maintainer been notified of it? It is also a good
> > idea to try to contact the maintainer by other
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:55:37AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 30/05/08 at 18:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Now, what we don't agree on:
> > > - I think that giving some time should only be very strongly
> > >rec
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> So far, you (in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) and Charles Plessy
> (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) raised that concern.
Sure, but Steve Langasek, Manoj and Frank Küster have been voicing what
are basically the same con
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
> maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...
Sure. For me it is not necessarily about "teams", but more about "active":
likely to respond and take care of urgent issues him/
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> * Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least on the
> BTS? Has the maintainer been notified of it? It is also a good
> idea to try to contact the maintainer by other means (private
> email, IRC)
IMO private mail
On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:13:43 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 30/05/08 at 17:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> For the record, I don't think that we should remove the language
>> about informing the maintainer with a mail message; and no, I don't
>> think we quite have a
On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:20:55 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Steve, Manoj, Charles, Richard, does this address your concerns? If
> not, can you propose some additional changes?
This new version does sound a lot better.
manoj
--
If voting could really change
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> "All members of a team becoming unresponsive" is possible, agreed.
>>> But it is a hell of a lot less likely than "at least one member of
>>> the team being able to respond to urgently needed changes if
>>> appropriately notified".
>>
On 31/05/08 at 18:44 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I propose to add "NMUs are usually not appropriate for
> > > team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
> > > instead." to the bullet list.
> >
> > It really depends on the team. T
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> > "All members of a team becoming unresponsive" is possible, agreed.
> > But it is a hell of a lot less likely than "at least one member of
> > the team being able to respond to urgently needed changes if
> > appropriately notified".
>
> So, why should th
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> I propose to add "NMUs are usually not appropriate for
>>> team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
>>> instead." to the bullet list.
>> It really depends on the team. There are small teams where all members
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I propose to add "NMUs are usually not appropriate for
> > team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS
> > instead." to the bullet list.
>
> It really depends on the team. There are small teams where all members
> might become unr
On 01/06/08 at 00:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> >
> > Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some
> > time to the maintainer to react
>
> Hi Lucas,
>
> excellence is definitely what we should a
Le Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some
> time to the maintainer to react
Hi Lucas,
excellence is definitely what we should aim for :)
Thank you for your efforts. Here are my last comments o
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 30/05/08 at 18:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> Now, what we don't agree on:
>>> - I think that giving some time should only be very strongly
>>>recommended, but not mandatory.
>>> - You think tha
On 31/05/08 at 04:25 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
>> general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
>> DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)
>>
>>
> In spite of
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)
In spite of my intention to not comment any further, I just cannot
let this c
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 05:17:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 30 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything
> > wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting
> > time, but that's your own problem). So no re
Hi,
In an effort to move the discussion forward, here is a new version of
the proposed section 5.11.1. (Bas Wijnen didn't have a chance to have a
look at this yet)
It tries to address the comments about communication with the maintainer
prior to the NMU, and about giving some time to the maintain
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The DEP currently addresses communication like that:
>
> When doing an NMU, you must always send a patch with the differences
> between the current package and your NMU to the BTS. If the bug you
> are fixing isn't reported yet, you must do that a
On 30/05/08 at 18:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Now, what we don't agree on:
> > - I think that giving some time should only be very strongly
> >recommended, but not mandatory.
> > - You think that giving some time should
Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)
On 30/05/08 at 17:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:25:34 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
31 matches
Mail list logo
