Xan, 2004-01-12 22:50:13 +0100 :
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:31:02PM +0100, Xan wrote:
>> > In 07 Jan 2004 17:09, I wrote the following in Usenet, and it seems that
>> > anyone answered essentially that
>> > 1) I have to send this to "aj", the release manager, and that
>> > 2) it is a example of
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 22:01, Xan wrote:
> Why not?
Because debian developers don't seem to care about this :)
> 2) With democratic election, aj will have less work.
Democratic elections do implies work. It has to be set up, votes to be
done by each debian developer, someone to parse the result,
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:31:02PM +0100, Xan wrote:
> > In 07 Jan 2004 17:09, I wrote the following in Usenet, and it seems that
> > anyone answered essentially that
> > 1) I have to send this to "aj", the release manager, and that
> > 2) it is a example of overengineered suggestion.
> >
> > Wel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Clinging to sanity, Xan mumbled in his beard:
> 1) I think that the democratical election of codenames is essential
Why? A hypothetical Debian stinky will run exactly the same as a hypotetical
Debian potatoe will. There's no technical reason for chos
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:31:02PM +0100, Xan wrote:
> In 07 Jan 2004 17:09, I wrote the following in Usenet, and it seems that
> anyone answered essentially that
> 1) I have to send this to "aj", the release manager, and that
> 2) it is a example of overengineered suggestion.
>
> Well, I have to
In 07 Jan 2004 17:09, I wrote the following in Usenet, and it seems that
anyone answered essentially that
1) I have to send this to "aj", the release manager, and that
2) it is a example of overengineered suggestion.
Well, I have to say that it was a solution (perhaps overengineered) to achieve
6 matches
Mail list logo
