re might be a lot of interested people who do not read
> debian-project. At least I feel DEP0 should go initially to dda.
debian-devel-announce is restricted to DD's do we want that for proposing
DEP's?
On the other hand, finding a DD to forward a proposal would probably b
tification field for each (error)
> override? That would help generic DD's going through all override
> files.
override files allow comments which means giving a justification is already
possible. So it seems this just needs to be documented as best practice?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka
ng about which I can afford to wait
> > > 2 months between each answer from you.
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
he DM proposal is nothing more then making that official by giving the
sponsoree upload rights for that package.
-> do we really need to make this more complicated than:
1) "sponsor officially declares this person can in his opion handle the
sponsored package"?
2) sponsoree ge
olved with deciding who gets
payed become a Debian issue, or remain something outside of Debian
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
pgpLpviIfs8mC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
hey decide it's
not they can continue working on their package(s) withouth having to jump
through any unnecessary hoops for each upload.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00084.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/03/msg9.html
[3] https://nm.debian.org/
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
pgpiCcsWU19yT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
, makes them feel that their effort is appreciated), making it more
likely they will both get and stay involved.
> and lengthened power hierarchy are costs which are outweighed by whatever
> advantages you perceive in this plan.
It makes the power hierarchy more fine-grained, and that's
ebian email adres
- (I also seem to recall something about subcriptions to... was it lwn?)
that's a lot broader then "being able to upload new versions of a particular
package"
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
pgp6QIQ2QIvqt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ver the current situation where DSA is a huge blax box that
either produces a change or doesn't.
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
pgpTXANSmK8RS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 11:07, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 June 2006 10:42, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > So to back up your assertion that I couldn't possibly have missed it
> > could you please provide some references to the lots of times it's
>
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 19:16, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:53:00PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:49, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > > * cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060620
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 06:32, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > - AFAIK nobody is arguing that Sven's patches aren't up to snuff
> > technically
> > - AFAIK he hasn't ever abused his d-i commit rights (when he had them)
>
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 11:49, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060620 11:02]:
> > judging from that Sven was definately in the wrong, of course that log
> > doesn't give any explanation at all of Sven's side of the story, so i
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 08:08, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 10:43:35PM -0700, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 09:12:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 04:53:18PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Corn
nteraction
for every technical contribution Sven makes
-> creates extra work for both Sven and the middleman
-> adds an otherwise unnecary delay for every fix done by Sven
The current 'solution' is IMO akin to telling Sven "yes you can participate
in the d-i party, provided you stay outside and do it through the window".
Which I think sucks big time as both a solution and a compromise.
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
pgptXphz6PVjK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 01:27, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 2006-05-16
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > what's the rationale for needing a 2nd package?
> >
> > e.g. I currently maintain 1 small simple sponsered package, I also have
also have
contributed for several years as a translator.
If we're introducing a new stage with upload rights for specific packages
why shouldn't I be able to get upload rights for my 1 package?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB
eryone I've ever chatted with?
it doesn't:
- your presence only gets broadcasts to people you've explicitly authorized
to subscribe to your presence (and you can de-authorize people at any
time)
- furthermore you can actually selectively send your presence to people,
allowing
ents.shtml
[8] http://www.jabber.org/software/libraries.shtml
[9] http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat/
[10] http://googletalk.blogspot.com/2006/01/xmpp-federation.html
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended sin
d by the project from
the projects point of view. Then why on earth would one be applying to
NM-process in the first place? And how on earth would one expect to pass
the philosyphy and procedures part of the process?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG
7;re a translator/documentation writer, which is largely a
consequence of the 'developer' part of the name.
Now how easy it is for a pure translator/documentation writer/... to pass
NM, I don't know, but from what I hear it _is_ possible with the NM process
nowadays (though again the maint
On Monday 25 April 2005 15:40, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 02:36:35PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
> > On Monday 25 April 2005 14:10, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > I think the request is ok (and the release managers have requested
> >
triggers an upload storm, he'll stop reporting on
release-issues in his emails, not stop sending mails all together. Quite a
different thing no?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and doub
school term paper and got busted.)
er, contribution is normally given in the FOSS world (and when it isn't a
firestorm is usually raised)
=> Free software is not about stealing or plagiarizing others peoples work,
it's about "standing on the shoulder of giants". Acknowl
bunkments) somewhere, that we
can point people to? Or is everyone currently on their own in finding the
pearls of wisdom buried in long threads on mailinglists most of our users
don't follow?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plai
Why on earth would we want to exclude openoffice docs (provided that the
contents is licensed freely?)
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
pgpc4DfJbj1aI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ndex.sv.html
incidentely loosing th .nl in the above urls works also (and is probably a
lot easier to remembe :)
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority fol
to give them a real status?
> > They definitely aren't second-class contributors.
>
> That should be a "traceable action" through the changelogs.
no need to trace the changelogs the pages
http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po-debconf/ keep track of
this already
--
C
tp://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/
[2] http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/genpr.htm
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
pgpWC3oDN5JTo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
tall what will be 3.1),
> Or ask it another way: Is it easily
> possible to upgrade from 3.0 to 3.1?
In general it is always possible to do a clean upgrade from one debian
release to the next, so this should be possible when sarge releases.
[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
-
30 matches
Mail list logo
