On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 07:20:09PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > It would be a proper action to write to -devel that package x, y and z
> > > need a new maintainer and people who are interested should speak up.
> >
> > Yes, but by someone in position and who has every right to do so.
> > I wo
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Re-upload the known orphaned packages with the 'Maintainer' field
> > > set to: "Orphaned Package "
> >
> > We're currently using "Maintainer: Debian QA Group
> > "
> >
> > I forget whatever log-ago discussion requted i
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 09:53:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Maintainers:
> >
> > How much work is expected from the maintainers?
>
> Can we refrain from formalising this too much? Personally, I quite like the
> way this works at the moment -- if there'
Joey Hess wrote:
> Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Re-upload the known orphaned packages with the 'Maintainer' field
> > set to: "Orphaned Package "
>
> We're currently using "Maintainer: Debian QA Group
> "
>
> I forget whatever log-ago discussion requted in that exact string, but it is
> already
Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > BTW what can we do with maintainers who can't be reached by e-mails,
> > > and their packages need attention? How can we know that they will/won't
> >
> > Please take a look at debian-policy where I've posted the 2nd half of
> > Vincent's proposal. The QA team need to be
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 03:01:12PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > The tech committee has a private group debian-ctte-private.
>
> When I became a maintainer I heard only of one private list (which I was
> subscribed on), debian-private. Why isn't that address written somewhere?
Sorry, I was wrong.
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 11:13:43PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Re-upload the known orphaned packages with the 'Maintainer' field
> > > set to: "Orphaned Package "
> >
> > I've seen only 'Debian QA Group' (and variations) in Maintainer: fields
> > so far - isn't that more suitable? Users
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 09:53:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Maintainers:
>
> How much work is expected from the maintainers?
Can we refrain from formalising this too much? Personally, I quite like the
way this works at the moment -- if there's a buggy package that you can fix,
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Re-upload the known orphaned packages with the 'Maintainer' field
> set to: "Orphaned Package "
We're currently using "Maintainer: Debian QA Group "
I forget whatever log-ago discussion requted in that exact string, but it is
already used for about 25 packages and I do
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Every Debian maintainer/user is encouraged to subscribe to the DQAG
> mailing list and become an active DQAG member.
So as I'm going to go through the bug reports and start fixing the bugs,
I would like to become a member of the QA-Team. I will have
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 09:53:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Re-upload the known orphaned packages with the 'Maintainer' field
> > set to: "Orphaned Package "
>
> I've seen only 'Debian QA Group' (and variations) in Maintainer: fields
> so far - isn't that more suit
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 09:53:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Re-upload the known orphaned packages with the 'Maintainer' field
> set to: "Orphaned Package "
I've seen only 'Debian QA Group' (and variations) in Maintainer: fields
so far - isn't that more suitable? Users will be scared to u
This is what Vincent Renardias wrote about Debian QA:
-- Debian QA Policy Draft --
Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTEC
13 matches
Mail list logo
