On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 02:12:21AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I have adjusted Vincent Renardias' proposal which Martin Schulze
> > kindly dug out of the archives. Here it is, and I hope you all
> > will have something to say about it, especially if there are any
> > errors to correct. After w
Josip Rodin wrote:
> I have adjusted Vincent Renardias' proposal which Martin Schulze
> kindly dug out of the archives. Here it is, and I hope you all
> will have something to say about it, especially if there are any
> errors to correct. After we make a conclusion and any needed changes,
> we must
Josip Rodin wrote:
> The Quality Assurance Group (QA Group) is attempt of the Debian Project
> to accelerate fixing bugs in our distribution. Primary occupation of the
> group is finding and maintaining orphaned packages, and helping to find
NO. Without reading any further I strongly disagree. I
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 11:33:04AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > Is there some place (document of some kind) where the Quality Assurance
> > > 'thing' is defined and described?
> >
> > Well, Joey posted a Draft for QA to this list, which should be now in
> > the ML-archiv
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > > Maybe we should limit this to bugs older than x month and I would
> > > > suggest x=3.
> >
> > > Well, if a maintainer doesn't close old bugs on his packages, he
> > > should first be w
On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > Maybe we should limit this to bugs older than x month and I would
> > > suggest x=3.
>
> > Well, if a maintainer doesn't close old bugs on his packages, he
> > should first be warned to do so. Of course, pointers on how to
>
>
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 1999 at 11:00:42PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > So I would like to ask, if the members of the QA-Team should have the
> > right to close bug-reports if they are fixed or they fix them?
> They now have the right to close those against orp
On Mon, Apr 26, 1999 at 11:00:42PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> So I would like to ask, if the members of the QA-Team should have the
> right to close bug-reports if they are fixed or they fix them?
They now have the right to close those against orphaned packages,
and mark 'fixed' those against
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 1999 at 11:00:42PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
>
> > So I would like to ask, if the members of the QA-Team should have the
> > right to close bug-reports if they are fixed or they fix them? Maybe we
> > should limit this to bugs old
On Mon, Apr 26, 1999 at 11:00:42PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> So I would like to ask, if the members of the QA-Team should have the
> right to close bug-reports if they are fixed or they fix them? Maybe we
> should limit this to bugs older than x month and I would suggest x=3.
> What do the o
goes:
+++ cut +++
The Debian Quality Assurance Group
by Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, February 1997
and Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, April 1999.
-- version 0.2
The Quality Assurance Group (QA Group) is an atte
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the normal development period (when only unstable and stable
> distributions exist), delays are as follows:
> * fix for a critical/grave bug: 2 days
> * fix for any kind of security or important bug:7 days
> * fix for a bug o
On 23 Apr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josip Rodin writes:
>>
>> In the normal development period (when only unstable and stable
>> distributions exist), delays are as follows:
>> * fix for a critical/grave bug:2 days
>> * fix for any kind of
On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 12:12:22AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > I think it is no excuse if the maintainer says he will soon have the
> > time to make a new upload.
>
> I think that is a good thing when we give maintainers time to do sth,
> since that way we reduce our workload and 'force' maint
On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 12:25:58PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Is this written clear enough now? We obviously need a native English
> > > speaker to read the text and find any wrong/awkward/unusual
> > > expressions/words.
> >
> > It's fine for me but ...
>
> I'm a native English speaker,
On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 12:04:50AM +0200, Josip Rodin écrivait:
> > Is this written clear enough now? We obviously need a native English
> > speaker to read the text and find any wrong/awkward/unusual
> > expressions/words.
>
> It
On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 05:23:16PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > > even get to read the message (when you don't read debian-devel for 10
> > > > days you surely won't notice one message among others). We must
> ^
> I think that's not t
On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 03:06:01PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > I don't see whay intent to NMU is neccessary to be sent to -qa, but okay.
> > A message to the BTS counts as a personal e-mail to the maintainer.
>
> I think it is nice for every member of QA what the others are doing. Apart
>
On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 02:46:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I don't see whay intent to NMU is neccessary to be sent to -qa, but okay.
> A message to the BTS counts as a personal e-mail to the maintainer.
I think it is nice for every member of QA what the others are doing. Apart
from that some
Le Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 02:46:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin écrivait:
> > > even get to read the message (when you don't read debian-devel for 10
> > > days you surely won't notice one message among others). We must
^
I think that's not true. Is t
On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 02:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > * Not so important package - [[things which aren't pri: Standard or
> > above --aj]]
>
> By this definition, anacron fits into this. Or, at least it did while it
> was orphaned.
>
> What packages currently maintained by -qa
On Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 12:50:06PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > I'm not really sure... people can get in situations where they can be
> > totally unreachable for a week or so, and if we do the NMU too soon,
> > they may not get the chance to do it themselves because they didn't
> > even get to
Le Sat, Apr 24, 1999 at 12:04:50AM +0200, Josip Rodin écrivait:
> Is this written clear enough now? We obviously need a native English
> speaker to read the text and find any wrong/awkward/unusual expressions/words.
It's fine for me but ...
> I'm not really sure... people can get in situations wh
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 10:06:36PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> * Not so important package - [[things which aren't pri: Standard or
> above --aj]]
By this definition, anacron fits into this. Or, at least it did while it
was orphaned.
What packages currently maintained by -qa should be withd
On Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 11:17:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Any other objections to the text?
>
> Yes, the period of 30 days is the time we should wait before an NMU can
> be done, but do we still need to ask the maintainer if we can do an NMU
> after this period ?
>From what I understoo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josip Rodin writes:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 07:12:18PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wr
> ote:
[..]
> You are completely missing the point. It is not written anywhere that
> QA Group members MUST do anything after the specified periods, but that
> they MAY do something
Le Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 08:05:41PM +0200, Josip Rodin écrivait:
> You are completely missing the point. It is not written anywhere that
> QA Group members MUST do anything after the specified periods, but that
> they MAY do something after the specified period of time. Today, they
> actually can't
On Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 07:12:18PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In the normal development period (when only unstable and stable
> > distributions exist), delays are as follows:
> > * fix for a critical/grave bug: 2 days
> > * fix for any kind of security or important bu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josip Rodin writes:
> Hi everyone,
>
[..]
>
> In the normal development period (when only unstable and stable
> distributions exist), delays are as follows:
> * fix for a critical/grave bug: 2 days
> * fix for any kind of security or importa
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 01:26:57PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > If it is neccessary to make all this official policy, lets go to
> > debian-policy list and vote for including this text in policy.
>
> This does not belong in policy. Policy concerns building packages, you don't
> see the constitution
Josip Rodin wrote:
> If it is neccessary to make all this official policy, lets go to
> debian-policy list and vote for including this text in policy.
This does not belong in policy. Policy concerns building packages, you don't
see the constitution or the policy group policy or anything in there.
ost appropriate to me) as /usr/doc/debian/debian-qa.txt, and
that this file is referenced by the policy or any other document
that is official as policy.
So, here it is:
+++ cut +++
The Debian Quality Assurance Group
by Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, February 1997
and Josip Ro
On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 11:33:04AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > Is there some place (document of some kind) where the Quality Assurance
> > 'thing' is defined and described?
>
> Well, Joey posted a Draft for QA to this list, which should be now in
> the ML-archive. This one is IMHO a good star
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are my questions:
> Is there some place (document of some kind) where the Quality Assurance
> 'thing' is defined and described?
Well, Joey posted a Draft for QA to this list, which should be now in
the ML-archive. This one is IMHO a good start.
Cheer
Hi,
Here are my questions:
Is there some place (document of some kind) where the Quality Assurance
'thing' is defined and described?
Does the QA policy have to be part of the Policy, or some other document?
If the former, what does a formal policy amendment need to have?
PLEASE CC: all replies t
35 matches
Mail list logo
