Hi.
Please, this requires *no reply* AT ALL, we don't need to waste more
time, the decision has been made already.
I'm not arguing or what so ever, but I think I still need to comment on
the comments, just for the record, to tell what happened, and to tell
what's behind the code being reviewed.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:47:54PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> As it stands, it's unreasonable to even try working on the 0.30.x branch
> for Squeeze, given the short amount of time remaining. I feel very sad
> about it, but as there's no way to convince the RT that the 0.32.x
> branch is in a v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have mixed feelings here. At the same time, I want to say sorry for
insisting so much, and I feel I'm a jerk to do so. But at the same time
I don't feel happy about the final outcome, just because of a timing
issue, and I know the package is in
> - ask ftp masters for a removal of DTC in Squeeze, then I'll use
> backports.d.o (all my messages to this thread are to avoid this which
> would really make me sad for all the time of Squeeze until Wheezy...).
> If you guys stick to the above list, that's the only solution.
>
We don't need
Hi Neil!
First, I have listen to you in the "this week in Debian" podcast. It was
fun. I wish I was living in Cambridge with 9 other DDs, I feel alone
here in Shanghai (lucky, Li Daobing lives here now)! :)
Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Firstly, please accept my apologies for the lack of
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:25:52PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Can we move forward and discuss what should be done now, rather than
> > discussing the past?
> >
> > Thomas
>
> It's been more than 10 days, and I still have no answer to what I will
> be allowed to chang
On 15/10/2010 15:25, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Can we move forward and discuss what should be done now, rather than
>> discussing the past?
>>
>> Thomas
>
> It's been more than 10 days, and I still have no answer to what I will
> be allowed to change/fix. Each time I've b
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Can we move forward and discuss what should be done now, rather than
> discussing the past?
>
> Thomas
It's been more than 10 days, and I still have no answer to what I will
be allowed to change/fix. Each time I've been asking things about DTC to
the RT, is it normal that
Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:17:54AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I know what I wrote, I know what has been written to me. I've been told
>> that my message has been forwarded to the release team (however, it
>> never has been written to me that it has been forwarded to a pub
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:17:54AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I know what I wrote, I know what has been written to me. I've been told
> that my message has been forwarded to the release team (however, it
> never has been written to me that it has been forwarded to a public
> list). It would tak
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 01:09 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2010 09:33 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Having no comments on my plans with v0.32.x when telling some RT
members in August, I thought it was fine.
>>>
>>> I won't be able to write a prope
On 10/06/2010 01:09 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 10/06/2010 09:33 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Having no comments on my plans with v0.32.x when telling some RT
members in August, I thought it was fine.
I won't be able to write a proper reply to your message right now.
But, I
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 09:33 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Having no comments on my plans with v0.32.x when telling some RT
>> members in August, I thought it was fine.
>
> I won't be able to write a proper reply to your message right now. But,
> I could not find the mail sent in Augus
On 10/06/2010 09:33 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> Having no comments on my plans with v0.32.x when telling some RT
> members in August, I thought it was fine.
I won't be able to write a proper reply to your message right now. But,
I could not find the mail sent in August you're speaking about. Ca
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 09/12/2010 05:17 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Dear Release Team,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
> No, sorry. We are not able to accept such a big change. If you have a
> targeted fix, we could review it. If you are able to provide a patch,
> please send it to us here.
>
> Regards,
I'm
On 09/12/2010 05:17 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Dear Release Team,
[...]
No, sorry. We are not able to accept such a big change. If you have a
targeted fix, we could review it. If you are able to provide a patch,
please send it to us here.
Regards,
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org
Philipp Kern wrote:
> Seems most of the PHP disaster is actually due to non-communication on
> the public -release list?
Hi,
If you wish to discuss this topic, you are welcome to do so, but not in
this thread please (and feel free to add me as Cc:, I'd be happy to read
as well, as I read -release
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:46:02AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> If the RT
> >> wasn't ready to accept the consequences of such a big move, then maybe
> >> it wasn't a good idea to upload PHP 5.3.2?
> > Please could you explain this comment? As above, PHP 5.3.2 has been in
> > unstable since Ma
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 23:17 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> - I have missed the deadline only for few days (12 days, right?). Before
>> that, the RT had more relaxed rules since the debconf10 announcement,
>> which was a surprise for some.
>
> We apparently have different
On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 23:17 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> - I have missed the deadline only for few days (12 days, right?). Before
> that, the RT had more relaxed rules since the debconf10 announcement,
> which was a surprise for some.
We apparently have different definitions of "few"; mailing 12
20 matches
Mail list logo
