On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:09:57PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Everything should be configurable (using a mail interface). It should be
> possible to "ignore" a problem for a specific package, ideally setting a date
> until when it will be ignored. For example, I should be able to say: "I don'
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:10:19PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Of course, but if those mails:
> - stay useful
This is a tricky one: as soon as you make nag mails regular and
autogenerated you decrease the usefulness. I'm also a bit wary of the
tendency the QA web stuff seems to have towards f
Hi,
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > A server side implementation is going to be pretty easy to ignore too:
> > even if one doesn't killfile them automated e-mails often end up being
> > things that are deleted unread based on the subject. If it doesn't do
> > opt in it's also likel
On 07/03/07 at 21:29 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 05:09:25PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > I think that it's important to make that server-side, so the information
> > is "pushed" to the developers. With a client-side implementation, most
> > developers won't use it.
>
Hi again,
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 10:34 +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:43:57AM +, Regis Boudin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I might be completely wrong, but...
> >
> > Playing around with dependencies trees, I noticed there are quite a few
> > obsolete Conflicts fie
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 05:09:25PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that it's important to make that server-side, so the information
> is "pushed" to the developers. With a client-side implementation, most
> developers won't use it.
A server side implementation is going to be pretty easy to
yes I do want a 250.oo check. I was back tracking thru all of my email and I
found this. I have not received a reply from you yet. Sincerely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) here. only was printed as [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
** AOL now offers free
email
On 07/03/07 at 10:48 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:09:57PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The goal of this mail is to describe a possible new tool in Debian: DDPO by
> > mail, and to start discussing its details and implementation.
> >
> > == Rationale ==
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:09:57PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The goal of this mail is to describe a possible new tool in Debian: DDPO by
> mail, and to start discussing its details and implementation.
>
> == Rationale ==
>
> Many maintainers only maintain a few packages, which are i
Hi,
The goal of this mail is to describe a possible new tool in Debian: DDPO by
mail, and to start discussing its details and implementation.
== Rationale ==
Many maintainers only maintain a few packages, which are in a very good state
most of the time. But often, such maintainers aren't fully a
10 matches
Mail list logo
