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*
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
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:57:26PM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > packages with more than 10/100 open bugs (any kind of)
>
> That is a nonsensical measure. Big packages have many bugs.
Debian archive contains more small packages than large ones, so it makes
> On 20/10/09 at 22:15 +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > packages in testing with more than 0/5 open RC-bug
> > packages in testing with more than 10/100 open bugs (any kind of)
> >
> > packages in testing with bugs tagged as 'request for help', 'more info&
> On 18/10/09 at 22:57 +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > Package: qa.debian.org
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It would be nice to get impression of the current (topmost) bug numbers,
> > for instance:
> >
> > packages with more than 1 open RC-bug
> &
Package: qa.debian.org
Hi,
It would be nice to get impression of the current (topmost) bug numbers, for
instance:
packages with more than 1 open RC-bug
packages with more than 10/100 open bugs (any kind of)
and eventually reports about packages with bugs tagged as 'request for help',
'more in
> Dear mentors and QA activists,
Hi,
> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.7-1 of the package
> "xcftools". It was orphaned by the former maintainer (who is upstream as
> well) and I intend to adopt it with this upload.
>
> debian/changelog mentions three new upstream versions whic
On Saturday 21 June 2008, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi!
Hi,
--cut--
> > Your changes seems to bring improvements..., yet could you please also
> > fix debian/rules so that both the binary-arch (buildd's call
> > `/usr/bin/fakeroot debian/rules binary-arch') and binary-indep targets
> > exist (see
On Saturday 21 June 2008, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
thanks for hunting RC bugs ;-)
> I prepared a QA upload for the latest upstream version of windowlab, a
> small and simple windowmanager.
>
> The upload would close the following bugs:
> - 486978 (serious): FTBFS: windowlab.h:37:34: er
On Saturday 16 September 2006 09:58, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, George Danchev wrote:
> > > Just to let you know that these are 'Not Found'. Why don't you upload
> > > to ment
On Saturday 15 July 2006 16:22, Amaya wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> George Danchev wrote:
> > It is already done.
>
> I took a look at you rpackage today, and the changelog:
>
> * Non-maintainer upload.
> * New upstream release. (Closes: #338451)
>
> I think
On Friday 14 July 2006 21:57, Amaya wrote:
> George Danchev wrote:
> > Good. Let's do that as real NMU first, i.e. with Polkan as maintainer
> > and let him has his last chance to respond. For the next upload I will
> > add myself in Uploaders, along with keeping him in M
On Friday 14 July 2006 21:06, Amaya wrote:
> Hi there, George (and Polkan)
Hello,
> George Danchev wrote:
> > Advice: I've been told to consult the QA team for advice and for
> > formal MIA tracking. If the package is to be left in the cold, I'm
> > read
Hello QA Team,
Background: shc package currently [1] in the archive has RC-issues [2],
which
have been resolved by a non-DD NMU [3]. No packages depend on shc package.
Sponsors welcome. As you can see the last upload happend back in 21 Oct 2004.
The RC has been filed 23 Oct 2005 with n
14 matches
Mail list logo
