On 05/30/2012 02:49 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> So, if nobody objects within the next following 2 or 3 days, and if Jack
> doesn't show up and oppose to this procedure, we'll do that.
>
> If anyone doesn't agree, please raise your concern *now* (including you,
> Jack).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Goi
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
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
On 05/30/2012 03:51 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I strongly object to this as a general principle: Debian freezing is no
> excuse for hijacking!
>
That's not the reason, the reason is that we've been working on tools to
improve
PHP package quality, and recently noticed that php-codesniffer wa
On 12-05-30 at 02:49am, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> we'd like to see the latest version in Wheezy
OK, this request exists:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=599617
> We sent a mail 5 days ago to Jack Bates, and he didn't reply. It's
> currently obvious that there's very few chances th
Hi,
On 29.05.2012 21:51, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Seems you had several years of solving this issue, yet you waited until
Similarly, the maintainer had 4 years to care about his package.
> Did you consider an NMU?
That might be an alternative, but looking at the current bug list people
will a
On 12-05-30 at 02:49am, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Jack Bates is supposed to maintain php-codesniffer,
[snip]
> this package last upload was from 2008-10-05,
[snip]
> we'd like to see the latest version in Wheezy
[snip]
> We sent a mail 5 days ago to Jack Bates, and he didn't reply. It's
> currently
Hi,
Jack Bates is supposed to maintain php-codesniffer, available from:
http://pear.php.net/package/PHP_CodeSniffer
Unfortunately, the PTS for this package shows that this package last
upload was from 2008-10-05, few months after version 1.1.0 was released
upstream (on the 2008-07-14). Upstream h
21 matches
Mail list logo
