that policy is well written down, at
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin - give it a
look and see if it clarifies your doubt about team maintenance and why
someone would prefer to have the ultimate responsibility for the
quality of a package.
you already created the openstack
On 11/11/19 9:17 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Personally, I've been judicious in putting myself as Maintainer in DPMT and
> PAPT packages. If we were to ditch the current policy, my immediate response
> would be to remove DPMT/PAPT from uploaders and maintain them outside the
> team. It's abou
On November 10, 2019 10:09:57 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>On 11/10/19 1:20 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> is there any public trace of these "many voices"?
>
>Just like when we discussed moving away from SVN to Git, we can't know
>the exact number unless we have a kind of poll/vote (but we don't
Hi Nick,
thank you very much for taking the time to review the packaging and
providing such detailed and helpful feedback.
On 10.11.19 00:02, Nick Morrott wrote:
> Thank you for your work in packaging python-pyjsparser. Out of
> curiosity, what are you using to be build your package?
My primary
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:29 AM Ondrej Novy wrote:
>
> Hi Sandro,
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> > We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious" in
> > several steps. In the
> > first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for
> > all l
On 11/11/19 9:21 AM, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY wrote:
> For the record, it looks like this policy comes from the package
> "developers-reference", section "Collaborative maintenance".
Absolutely not. The developers-reference doesn't tell what the Python
team policy is when the Uploaders field contains
Hi,
po 11. 11. 2019 v 12:07 odesílatel Yves-Alexis Perez
napsal:
> generic question about the interaction between the python transition and
> current situation with NEW processing.
>
I think it's unrelated.
State of NEW processing is stable for long time. But if you need to accept
NEW binary-o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 12:04 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > sorry if this has been discussed already somewhere else (I stopped reading
> > - -devel@ a long time ago) but is there something done to improve NEW
> > processing
> > here? I have two pac
On 11.11.19 11:43, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 10:33 +0100, Ondřej Nový wrote:
We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious"
in several steps. In the
first phase we are going to raise severity of the py
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 10:33 +0100, Ondřej Nový wrote:
> We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious"
> in several steps. In the
> first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for
> all leaf module pack
Would it be possible to satisfy both groups by having an option on DDPO
and similar listing tools for "only show team-as-Maintainer packages" vs
"also show team-as-Uploader packages"?
i.e. making it convenient for people to use either of these definitions
of "in the team" as they prefer?
For the record, it looks like this policy comes from the package
"developers-reference", section "Collaborative maintenance".
--
Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY
PGP 015AE9B25DCB0511D200A75DE5674DEA514C891D
12 matches
Mail list logo
