On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 11:33:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> We can't accept a decision that goes completely against what we have
> been told by people in charge.
When did people in charge tell anyone that stable update policy changed?
I didn't see them... there was a mail from Luk Claes th
Le samedi 02 juin 2007 à 10:17 +0200, Martin Schulze a écrit :
> Come on people! Can't you accept a decision others have to make?
We can't accept a decision that goes completely against what we have
been told by people in charge.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surre
Fathi Boudra wrote:
> desktop-base for etchr1 was rejected. BTW, this is just a call to SRM team to
> know if Martin is alone to think desktop-base must be rejected ?
Come on people! Can't you accept a decision others have to make?
Regards,
Joey
--
Every use of Linux is a
On Saturday 02 June 2007 09:46, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> desktop-base for etchr1 was rejected. BTW, this is just a call to SRM
> team to know if Martin is alone to think desktop-base must be rejected
> ?
IMHO, the endless requests for this are getting annoying. AFAIK changes of
this
hi,
desktop-base for etchr1 was rejected. BTW, this is just a call to SRM team to
know if Martin is alone to think desktop-base must be rejected ?
Please, give your POV you on the subject, maybe it can help ... or not ;)
cheers,
Fathi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
* Josselin Mouette [Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:37:17 +0200]:
> As for this specific package, the default look of the distribution is
> something important, whether you like it or not. Dismissing trivial
> fixes with an important impact, just because they are not RC, looks like
> some kind of bad joke.
O
Le jeudi 31 mai 2007 à 14:58 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit :
> there are many trivial bugs to fix, even in etch. Sorry, but we need to
> draw the line somewhere, and this package makes it under that line
> (IMHO).
I'd really like an answer to my previous question.
As for this specific package
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> there are many trivial bugs to fix, even in etch. Sorry, but we need to
> draw the line somewhere, and this package makes it under that line
> (IMHO).
the accentuation was on the major impact of this bug. that it was so
trivial to fix is just a convenience side-effect.
[ great, i'm blocked again in your spam filters.. resend with different
from ]
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> there are many trivial bugs to fix, even in etch. Sorry, but we need to
> draw the line somewhere, and this package makes it under that line
> (IMHO).
the accentuation was on the major impac
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> I don't see the RCness of this bug. Please explain.
It is an important bug with major end-user factor as it determines the
default look&feel of Debian when installing KDE.
As it is trivial to fix (as seen in the interdiffs), I strongly
recommend you to consider this pa
Hi,
On Thu May 31, 2007 at 14:54:16 +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > I don't see the RCness of this bug. Please explain.
>
> It is an important bug with major end-user factor as it determines the
> default look&feel of Debian when installing KDE.
>
> As it is trivial
Le mardi 29 mai 2007 à 00:04 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit :
> I don't see the RCness of this bug. Please explain.
Could you please explain what is the current policy for package
inclusion in point releases?
>From previous discussions with Andreas and Julien, I understood it was
possible now
Hi,
On Wed May 23, 2007 at 14:49:21 +0200, Lo?c Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've uploaded desktop-base 4.0.2 yesterday with a fix for #422043
> prepared by Fathi Boudra. It's Arch: all.
>
> 1) please review the diff between 4.0.1 and 4.0.2
> 2) does it need to be hinted to testing befo
On Wed, May 23, 2007, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Re-uploaded 4.0.2 as 4.0.1etch1 towards stable.
Uploaded 4.0.3 to sid and 4.0.1etch2 (identical) towards stable since
fabo and pusling wanted to push and additional fix to avoid a mismatch
between two backgrounds resulting of the first change.
--
Lo
On Wed, May 23, 2007, Luk Claes wrote:
> > 3) can you put 4.0.2 straight into stable, or should I prepare a new
> > upload with the same changes but named 4.0.1etch1?
> It's probably easist if you upload it with a version between 4.0.1 and 4.0.2
Re-uploaded 4.0.2 as 4.0.1etch1 towards stable
Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've uploaded desktop-base 4.0.2 yesterday with a fix for #422043
> prepared by Fathi Boudra. It's Arch: all.
>
> 1) please review the diff between 4.0.1 and 4.0.2
> 2) does it need to be hinted to testing before it can be uploaded to
> stable?
It wo
Hi,
I've uploaded desktop-base 4.0.2 yesterday with a fix for #422043
prepared by Fathi Boudra. It's Arch: all.
1) please review the diff between 4.0.1 and 4.0.2
2) does it need to be hinted to testing before it can be uploaded to
stable?
3) can you put 4.0.2 straight into stabl
17 matches
Mail list logo
