On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 06:47:08AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> >> I don't understand what you mean. Like many, I know that there are
> >> several "problematic" teams in Debian due to manpower issues. What I
> >> asked is how many teams are broken beyond repair...to the point that new
> >>
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:32:31AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean. Like many, I know that there are
> several "problematic" teams in Debian due to manpower issues. What I
> asked is how many teams are broken beyond repair...to the point that new
> manpower c
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:32:31AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean. Like many, I know that there are
> several "problematic" teams in Debian due to manpower issues. What I
> asked is how many teams are broken beyond repair...to the point that new
> manpower can
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 05:45:49AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> Lucas writes about "that broken" team, you write about teams which "had
> breakages" and "had fairly major issues". If there are really 8 teams
> which were at one point "that broken", I suppose your proposition is
> interest
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 05:45:49AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> Lucas writes about "that broken" team, you write about teams which "had
> breakages" and "had fairly major issues". If there are really 8 teams
> which were at one point "that broken", I suppose your proposition is
> interestin
I'm wondering who's "right" between Lucas and you.
> > The "statu quo proposal", i.e "things aren't that broken in most
> > teams, we can just solve problems in an ad-hoc fashion where problems
> > occur" ?
>
> Judging by history, I don't think our current approach is exactly
> flourishing. We've
6 matches
Mail list logo
