On 12-05-30 at 09:41pm, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 05:11 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > you use Debian freeze as argument for swift takeover. I find it not
> > respectful to rush processing like that!
> >
>
> Again, no! That wasn't my point. My point was that it was left
> unmaint
Hi,
On 30.05.2012 18:17, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 09:41:30PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> By the way, do other think that, even in this case, I should keep the
>> changes
>> as minimum as possible? Or is it ok, considering that all of our
>> toolsets have
>> changed since t
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 09:41:30PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> By the way, do other think that, even in this case, I should keep the
> changes
> as minimum as possible? Or is it ok, considering that all of our
> toolsets have
> changed since the last upload (eg: we now have pkg-php-tools and dh
Thomas Goirand writes:
> By the way, do other think that, even in this case, I should keep the
> changes
> as minimum as possible? Or is it ok, considering that all of our
> toolsets have
> changed since the last upload (eg: we now have pkg-php-tools and dh 8
> sequencer), that we do a bit more c
On 05/30/2012 05:11 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> *nothing* qualifies for a hijacking.
>
> With hijacking I mean disrespectful takeover.
>
> Either respect maintainership by only NMUing, or respectfully resolve
> with the Debian community that the current maintainer is unfit for the
> task.
Ok,
On 12-05-30 at 11:30am, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> We aren't kicking him, we want to have the package team maintained.
> He's fine to come and join!
You want to play by your rules (file), not his. That's kicking to me.
> This doesn't really qualify for an NMU, nor does the upgrade to the
> latest
6 matches
Mail list logo
