For the record, it looks like this policy comes from the package
"developers-reference", section "Collaborative maintenance".
--
Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY
PGP 015AE9B25DCB0511D200A75DE5674DEA514C891D
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?
-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
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 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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
