Jonas Smedegaard dijo [Thu, May 31, 2012 at 05:52:47PM +0200]:
> > > You avoided my question, it seems: What does "Maintainer:" mean, then?
> >
> > What does "Uploaders:" field mean?
>
> You still avoid my question: What does "Maintainer:" mean?
This is getting silly. Please stop the word-defini
On Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> You still avoid my question: What does "Maintainer:" mean?
why do you ask rhetoric questions? It's defined in policy and you know it. So
whats the point?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "uns
On 12-05-31 at 04:43pm, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:15:31 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > [dropping PHP Pear team as cc]
> >
> > On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > > You and a lot of others fail to
On Thursday 31 May 2012 16:15:31 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> [dropping PHP Pear team as cc]
>
> On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > > > responsible for the
[dropping PHP Pear team as cc]
On 12-05-31 at 03:16pm, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > > responsible for the package.
> >
> > Huh?!?
> >
> > What does "Maintainer:" mean if no
On Thursday 31 May 2012 11:47:21 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi,
> > You and a lot of others fail to realize that the *SPONSOR* is
> > responsible for the package.
>
> Huh?!?
>
> What does "Maintainer:" mean if not the entity being responsible for,
> well, maintaining?!?
Who is responsible for the
Jonas Smedegaard (31/05/2012):
> I have heard before the argument of the sponsor having responsibility,
> but in reality I have *never* heard of sponsors actually being held
> responsible for anything but the concrete upload of a specific
> packaging release.
Suggested reading:
http://bugs.debi
On 12-05-31 at 09:22am, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 11:11 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> It is better to have a well maintained package than to ait for
> somebody who collected a number of NMUs and doesn't react to bug
> reports for years.
I perfectly agree.
But it is better to have re
On 05/30/2012 11:11 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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 rea
9 matches
Mail list logo