On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 10:30:05AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 05 2004, 12:07:49AM]:
> > > me) that can justify a such delay. Damn, I would be happy if I could
> > > tell everyone who asks me why we don't have X 4.3 in Sid: this is broken
> > > and this is
#include
* Branden Robinson [Thu, Feb 05 2004, 12:07:49AM]:
> > me) that can justify a such delay. Damn, I would be happy if I could
> > tell everyone who asks me why we don't have X 4.3 in Sid: this is broken
> > and this is broken, this would ruine most people's day. But having only
> > explanat
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 09:45:09PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Please calculate the probability for this situation to happen in a
> predicatable time frame before judging DanielS.
>
> IMHO, there are simply no real reasons (for people out there, including
> me) that can justify a such delay. Damn
Moin Adrian!
Adrian Bunk schrieb am Wednesday, den 04. February 2004:
> him, and if the question isn't "Should XFree86 4.3.0 enter unstable
> now?" but instead "What's missing until everyone (including Branden)
> considers XFree86 4.3.0 to be ready for unstable?" might lead to
Please calculate th
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:40:09PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> That said, and although I's say that I don't agree with Branden in all
> areas, my impression is that it should possible to work together with
> him, and if the question isn't "Should XFree86 4.3.0 enter unstable
> now?" but instead "Wh
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:08:19PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>...
> I did, however, state that I felt that 4.3.0-1 was by far the superior
> base to work from in sid, for a number of reasons (not least that
> propagation to sarge would put the XSF in the position of having to
> maintain two codeba
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:31:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:55:38PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > I think you got me wrong (quite possible, considering my language). In
> > fact, that is what I wanted to say: he should rely on trust, and not
> > install fixed
> Would it be so bad if dinstall rejected uploads that appeared to be NMUs
> but didn't identify themselves as such in the changelog?
Lame.
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 04:27:46PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:03:22PM -0500, Peter Constantinidis wrote:
> > I read in the news today that the release of X 4.4 will have a new
> > license that requires an advertising clause. As a result, it seems
> > likely that Debian
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:38:16AM +1300, Mike Beattie wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:11:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I have felt consistently under pressure to do 2 things:
> >
> > 1) release xfree86 4.3.0-1 to sid ASAP
> > 2) delegate responsibility ASAP
> >
> > Very few actions
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 06:22:24PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:08:19PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> [...]
> >> I did, however, state that I felt that 4.3.0-1 was by far the superior
> >> base to work from in sid, for a n
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:55:38PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> I think you got me wrong (quite possible, considering my language). In
> fact, that is what I wanted to say: he should rely on trust, and not
> install fixed rules or technical measures to prevent things like that.
Would it be so
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:21:31PM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:04:30 -0500
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This upload was done without advance notice to, or consultation with the
> > rest of the X Strike Force (XSF) team
>
> I asked Branden for clarific
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:03:22PM -0500, Peter Constantinidis wrote:
> I read in the news today that the release of X 4.4 will have a new
> license that requires an advertising clause. As a result, it seems
> likely that Debian will not be able to carry it.
>
> Therefore it looks like this brouha
I read in the news today that the release of X 4.4 will have a new license
that requires an advertising clause. As a result, it seems likely that
Debian will not be able to carry it.
Therefore it looks like this brouhaha will be quickly resolved by X 4.3 or
a cvs fork of X 4.3.999 being the last v
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:08:19PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Organizationally, we have more experience with single-maintainer
> > packages, and I think we have to evolve a bit with respect to team
> > maintenance a bit more. Fundamentally, I think team-maintenance of
> > packages has to be g
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:01:31AM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> >The primary purpose of this mail is to prompt a discussion of what we as
> >a Project should do in the general case of surprise uploads of this
> >nature which are, again, neither hijacks nor NMUs, but have s
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:11:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I have felt consistently under pressure to do 2 things:
>
> 1) release xfree86 4.3.0-1 to sid ASAP
> 2) delegate responsibility ASAP
>
> Very few actions serve both goals at once, so time spent on one is,
> obviously, time not sp
Hi,
Am Do, den 29.01.2004 schrieb Andrew Suffield um 13:01:
> > That's a different matter whatsoever. We are talking about package
> > maintenance here, which is what being in Debian is all about. Violating
> > the DMUP is something completely different than doing something WRT
> > package managem
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:08:19PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
[...]
>> I did, however, state that I felt that 4.3.0-1 was by far the superior
>> base to work from in sid, for a number of reasons (not least that
>> propagation to sarge would put the XSF
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:08:19PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> [Forgive the crosspost, but I think each paragraph touches on different
> issues, and that all 3 is the best. Please Cc me if you don't reply to
> -x, as that's the only one of these lists I'm on.]
I disagree that your message was ger
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:17:29AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:59:51PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > Am Mi, den 28.01.2004 schrieb Branden Robinson um 19:04:
> > > > whether any sort of sanction
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:17:29AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:59:51PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Am Mi, den 28.01.2004 schrieb Branden Robinson um 19:04:
> > > whether any sort of sanction should
> > > take place as a result of these actions, and what standar
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:59:51PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Mi, den 28.01.2004 schrieb Branden Robinson um 19:04:
> > whether any sort of sanction should
> > take place as a result of these actions, and what standards of procedure
> > and courtesy we should have in team-maintained packag
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:21:31PM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:04:30 -0500
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This upload was done without advance notice to, or consultation with the
> > rest of the X Strike Force (XSF) team
>
> I asked Branden for clarific
[Forgive the crosspost, but I think each paragraph touches on different
issues, and that all 3 is the best. Please Cc me if you don't reply to
-x, as that's the only one of these lists I'm on.]
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:04:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> FYI, for those who didn't know alrea
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> FYI, for those who didn't know already, an upload identifying itself as
> xfree86 4.3.0-1, not authorized by me, was made by Daniel Stone to
> Debian unstable early Tuesday morning UTC.
[...]
> This upload was done without advance notice to, or co
Hello,
I have not yet made my mind up on this, but one thing is clear to me:
Am Mi, den 28.01.2004 schrieb Branden Robinson um 19:04:
> whether any sort of sanction should
> take place as a result of these actions, and what standards of procedure
> and courtesy we should have in team-maintained
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:04:30 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This upload was done without advance notice to, or consultation with the
> rest of the X Strike Force (XSF) team
I asked Branden for clarification on this, and the XSF consists of
everybody subscribed to [EMAIL PROTEC
Sam Johnston wrote:
> For a start, uploads by non [co-]maintainers could be held for manual
> processing or rejected outright (except where uploaded in accordance
> with NMU policy of the delay to a delay queue, where the
> [co-]maintainers are notified at the time of the upload and have the
>
Branden Robinson wrote:
The primary purpose of this mail is to prompt a discussion of what we as
a Project should do in the general case of surprise uploads of this
nature which are, again, neither hijacks nor NMUs, but have some
features of both.
For a start, uploads by non [co-]maintainers c
31 matches
Mail list logo
