On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
> > corresponding patch filed in the BTS,
>
> Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:17:32 +0100
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > There's "I screwed up because I made a mistake", and there's "I
> > screwed up because I don't actually k
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > I don't disagree. I would much rather every ubuntu change had a
> > > corresponding patch filed in the BTS,
>
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:57:37AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > I don't disagree. I would much rath
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:28:39AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:17:32 +0100
> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > There's "I screwed up b
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:17:32AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > There's "I screwed up because I made a mistake", and there's "I screwed up
> > because I don't actually know what I'm doing", but "I screwed up because I
> > didn't c
On Thursday 15 December 2005 11:57, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Please give a reference to this directive. I am part of the MOTU team,
> and have never heared about such a directive.
May be I've been a FUD victim too, but I've also heard that directive some
months ago.
Best regards
--
Isaac Clere
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing
> > >
> > > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to
> > > not
> > > send patches directly to the BTS,
> >
> > Please give a reference to
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep
> > up.
>
> They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
> have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
> whi
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
> have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
> which should *not* go into debian.
A good idea for Ubuntu to ease this would
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> It is true that some MOTUs don't consider submitting
> to debian bts as priority because of bad experiences they had because
> of unresponsive and unhelpful Debian Maintainers.
How much extra work is it to submit a patch one has p
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 11:57:37AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:06:51PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:57:12PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > I don't disagree. I would much rath
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > OTOH, I've seen a number of ubuntu patches which were blatantly wrong,
> > where the maintainer clearly didn't grok the package they were changing.
>
> *This* irritates me mightily. The reason, as given by a MOTU when I asked
It irritates us all. B
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:50:54AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > OTOH, I've seen a number of ubuntu patches which were blatantly wrong,
> > > where the maintainer clearly didn't grok the package they were changing.
> >
> > *This* irrit
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Every "relevant" change put into the BTS would be nice, yes. Filing
> > > >
> > > > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is
> > > > to no
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:55:45PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep
> > > up.
> >
> > They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
> > have
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random
> maintainers.
Ubuntu does not have any employees.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
[Andreas Schuldei pisze na temat "Re: snapshot.d.n (was: Complaint about
#debian operator)"]:
> actually, NetApp (the storage company) and Intel (the chip
> manufacture) are solving this problem for us. we get a 7 or
> 10Tbyte storage from NetApp and two beefy servers to use as a
> front end for
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I was implying that ubuntu employees where supposed to not file patches as
> attachement to debian BTS, and instead send links to the ubuntu patch
> database, links which may or may not stay alive for the time needed until the
> patch i
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:40:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random
> > maintainers.
>
> Ubuntu does not have any employees.
Canoncal has.
Greetings
Marc, suppressing the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:54:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> If the ubuntu patch database is public, and the patches therein
> DFSG-free licensed, why don#t we establish an automatism which moves
> patches from the Ubuntu patch database to the Debian BTS?
The Utnubu[1] project was started at Debc
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:40:37PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:12:35PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > That said, it may be different for ubuntu employees and random
> > maintainers.
>
> Ubuntu does not have any employees.
Those guys that get money for ubuntu work. No n
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:29PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:54:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > If the ubuntu patch database is public, and the patches therein
> > DFSG-free licensed, why don#t we establish an automatism which moves
> > patches from the Ubun
On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges
I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean?
--
Andrew Saunders
Hi Sasa!
* Sasa Matejic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051213 17:15]:
> We have founded Linux Magazine project in march 2005.Our goal is to offer
> free hard copyes of Linux Magazine to it's members on their home address
> informing them about the news and events in Linux industry absolutely for
> free.Th
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:26PM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges
>
> I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean?
I have no idea how ubuntu works inte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is true that some MOTUs don't consider submitting to debian bts
> as priority because of bad experiences they had because of
> unresponsive and unhelpful Debian Maintainers.
That doesn't solve any pro
"Siward de Groot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Here i think clause b) is sufficient,
as info on debian servers is machine-readable,
and the internet is a medium customarily used for software interchange.
So clause c) is not needed.
Last paragraph is not app
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:26PM +, Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ubuntu is setup internally to circumvent social charges
>
> I don't understand this statement. Could you please explain what you mean?
My
Sven Luther wrote:
> I have no idea how ubuntu works internally, but my believe, since they
> (canonical) pay people all around the world, and they don't have structures
> locally to do the official hiring, they are forced to hire independent worker,
> who pay their social charges and stuff themsel
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >
> > Notice that it is official ubuntu directive to *NOT* do that, that is to not
> > send patches directly to the BTS,
>
> Please give a reference to this directive. I am part of the MOTU team,
> and have never heared about such a directive.
There was a large thread on
Hi,
(I just got the mails to utnubu-discuss, so bear with me)
Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
> The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to
> the BTS, which would notice an URL to an ubuntu patch, and auto-attach it (and
> complain
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better
> than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth.
It's SOP in Debian to attach patches to bug reports. I might consider
doing otherwise if the patch exceeded 1 megabyte.
(And yes, I'm on
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 16:13 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > I don't think there is much gain - an attached patch is not much better
> > than a link, and might annoy people with limited bandwidth.
>
> It's SOP in Debian to attach patches to bug reports. I might
On Thursday 15 December 2005 18:24,
Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Siward de Groot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Here i think clause b) is sufficient,
> > as info on debian servers is machine-readable,
> > and the internet is a medium customarily used for software interchange.
> >
Siward de Groot wrote:
[...]
>>The FSF diagrees. See below.
>
> They can disagree all they want,
> but as long as they don't write it in the license, we are not bound by it.
> Or do you know of any prior ruling or general consensus among lawyers
>about this ?
So you think you'll convince a
On Thursday 15 December 2005 04:03 am, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive,
> > and have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific
> > patches which should
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
> > The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to
> > the BTS, which would notice an URL to an ubuntu patch, and auto-attach it
> > (and
> > complain loudly to the submitter if
Hi,
I've been trying to unsubscribe Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from
debian-kde@lists.debian.org
I used this page twice but it didn't work:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/unsubscribe
This gmail a/c is setup to receive emails sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Every day this a/c puts over 200 "Mail D
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:00:22PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (I just got the mails to utnubu-discuss, so bear with me)
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 15.12.2005, 15:39 +0100 schrieb Sven Luther:
> > The process was to be manually though, the idea is to scan incoming mails to
> > the BTS, w
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:23:36PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 15 December 2005 04:03 am, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive,
> > > and have the ubuntu guys onl
41 matches
Mail list logo
