On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 08:12:09AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Some parts feel very obvious to me. Am I missing something?
In short: try scripting it.
> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 14:38 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > At present, how do you find packages that have been packaged by non-DDs
> > and up
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 08:46:51PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> My personal hope is that this will largely be on
> teams, so that they do end up getting regular package reviews anyhow via
> commits to their source repos going to mailing lists.
Oh, one thing: please don't just "hope" that things
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:36:06AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> The problems I fear stem from the fact that the DM proposal *changes*
> the system we are used to. The advantage of having Debian Maintainers is
> that they don't need to go through a sponsor every time, in other words
> redu
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Anyway, now Rperl-lover can upload the package on his own, but as a pure
>> perl robot, he is bound to fuck up. After a year, *you* will need to
>> kick him to understand how SONA
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Anyway, now Rperl-lover can upload the package on his own, but as a pure
> perl robot, he is bound to fuck up. After a year, *you* will need to
> kick him to understand how SONAMEs work :)
And yet I'm speaking in favor of th
Hi,
On Thursday 02 August 2007 08:12, Bart Martens wrote:
> Also, I think that a quick win could be to stop using the term "non-DD",
> and instead calling all contributors "Debian Contributor" (DC).
> [...]
> The term "Debian Contributor" is at
> least honorable, and something to brag about. :
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Hm. I have to admit I'd be much more inclined to vote for things like
>> this that I don't really like but that may work out if they
>> self-destructed in a year unless confirmed by a seco
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 08:12:09AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 14:38 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > At present, how do you find packages that have been packaged by non-DDs
> > and uploaded with the minimal checks by a DD in order to review them,
> > or just get a sense of h
Hi aj,
Some parts feel very obvious to me. Am I missing something?
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 14:38 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> At present, how do you find packages that have been packaged by non-DDs
> and uploaded with the minimal checks by a DD in order to review them,
> or just get a sense of ho
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Also, on another front, adding AJ, Joey, and Ryan Murray to a team isn't
> exactly helping with getting new people involved who might have more free
> time. How many other hats do those three people already wear?
Oh, for me: ftpmaste
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:49:27AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I doubt this, honestly. For one thing, I doubt that AJ, as much as that
> > may be tempting, would actually hold a grudge that way for very long; [...]
> I also think Aj would be open to
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Giving more people the ability to try out their ideas directly is
> > valuable, and if the risks can be kept low, entirely worth doing.
> Hm. I have to admit I'd be much more inclined to v
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> > 1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we should be
> >striving to have fewer classes.
> Does it really?
Yes, it does. Right now, in terms of upload ca
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand, the only way it will get examined is if someone who
> thinks it's worth trying has the ability to try it. Otherwise we end up
> with endless discussion that just doesn't go anywhere.
> Giving more people the ability to try out their i
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> ... without ever *asking* if that would be true. I assumed this idea to
>> be dead because last year's discussion on -newmaint showed that most DDs
>> were against that proposal.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Don't let the perfect be the ennemy of the good.
>
> I think one of the places where we're disagreeing is that I don't consider
> the current process fundamentally broken.
I don't think so (but it looks like Anthony seems to think so). I think it
works
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> ... without ever *asking* if that would be true. I assumed this idea to
> be dead because last year's discussion on -newmaint showed that most DDs
> were against that proposal.
Surely, "discussion on -newmaint" and "most DDs
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> (Ideally, in my opinion, there would be little or no sponsorship as there
> is today and instead there would be detailed review of one's packages
> leading to DM status for those packages as part of an NM process, with the
> other case
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:56:01AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:04:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > What happens when you send a single email like that has already been
> > demonstrated:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00332.html
> > Add to that t
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:42:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That was 23rd March. There wasn't a reply, and my access wasn't
> removed. Early April was the release, and at that point debconf was close
> enough that I don't think I bothered doing anything more until then,
> at which point I stay
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
>> something different and then saying we can change it later. It's
>> always easier to change things before they start.
> This is not true
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 05:04:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> What happens when you send a single email like that has already been
> demonstrated:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00332.html
>
> Add to that that this time there've been explicit threats to blacklist
> appl
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:20:32AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:52:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If n-m were working well, or even I thought it had any hope of working
> > well, I expect I'd be all for this being unified with n-m -- after all,
> > that's what I'd tho
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> (ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve it. In
>> fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for it.
> On that score, I agree. I would furth
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:52:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The reason all of that is a problem is that the power to decide who is and
> isn't a member of the project has been centralised with two individuals
> (James Troup and Joey Schulze originally, then just James, and now Joerg
> Jaspert
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:19:42AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think the idea could be implemented, with
> better unification with the NM process, [...]
No doubt it could. I think that would be a bad thing, personally.
The NM process is broken. The ideas for fixing the NM process are
directly
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:36:46 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
>> (ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve
>> it. In fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for
>> it.
>
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:36:46 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> (ii) Debian has a QA problem. Sponsorship did nothing to improve
> it. In fact, I believe sponsorship to be one of the reasons for
> it.
This seems like an issue for educating sponsors who
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, the GR is needed to avoid James using his DSA privileges to revert
> and block the changes and to avoid Joerg using his DAM privileges to
> blacklist anyone who participates in the queue from joining Debian in
> future.
I neither believe that this d
Anthony Towns wrote:
> If there are really that many DDs that are morons that they need to be
> dealt with by policy, n-m isn't doing its job.
I'm sure there are quite a few who predate NM
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11096 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
> > whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
> > what you do in private.
>
> I dont have a problem with it being public.
> I
On 11096 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
> whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
> what you do in private.
I dont have a problem with it being public.
I have one with someone just making som
Le lundi 30 juillet 2007 à 20:22 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> The only way I can see for anyone without ftpmaster privileges to
> implement it, GR or not, is by automatically re-signing uploads from
> DMs with their own keys, which doesn't sound terribly ideal to me.
That hasn't prevented some
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> (i) You have added a policy for everything, but removal from the DM list
> is still under-defined.
Yes. I haven't seen an example of removing a contributor that's worked
well, so I don't have a process *to* define. At
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:43:28AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Really, this GR (despite the appearance due to the initial policy being
> > worded in the GR) is not about implementation details but about a general
> > direction that we want to have or not.
> No it's not. General directions a
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:32:12AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>(2) As soon as someone is in the DM keyring, a DD can give him
> >>upload rights for virtually every pac
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you just read the long email I just sent a few hours ago? You
> replied to it, so I assume you have noticed it, but somehow I get the
> impression that you didn't actually have a look at the content.
I guess I misunderstood this comment:
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No, I'm not. Is it so hard to imagine that a DM could maintain (adopt,
>> co-maintain, ...) something and still do a horrible job?
> It isn't. But, as this is no worse situation than we currently have
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, I'm not. Is it so hard to imagine that a DM could maintain (adopt,
> co-maintain, ...) something and still do a horrible job?
It isn't. But, as this is no worse situation than we currently have
with sponsoring, I don't really see it as a sho
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No. "DD moron allows DM moron to upload crappy packages, noone
>> notices". I'm amazed that you fail to see a problem.
> Ah, you're saying that a Joe R. Developer doesn't care to take a look
> at the
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. "DD moron allows DM moron to upload crappy packages, noone
> notices". I'm amazed that you fail to see a problem.
Ah, you're saying that a Joe R. Developer doesn't care to take a look
at the changes when some random developer does an NMU on
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not saying that the DD is malicious, but simply a moron. That
>> happens more often, really.
> OK, the DD is a moron and marks a random package X as a DM-allowed by
> doing a NMU. Maintainer of X
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not saying that the DD is malicious, but simply a moron. That
> happens more often, really.
OK, the DD is a moron and marks a random package X as a DM-allowed by
doing a NMU. Maintainer of X notices this and does an immediate upload
which re
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>(2) As soon as someone is in the DM keyring, a DD can give him
>>upload rights for virtually every package by adding the DM to
>>the Uploaders field and adding the DM-Upl
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (i) You have added a policy for everything, but removal from the DM list
> is still under-defined. This is a crappy idea. Imagine a Sven Luther
Under-defined? It lists two criteria for "forceful" removal: request
from the DAM and request f
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:24:36AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
> > something different and then saying we can change it later. It's always
> > easier to change things before they star
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After that meeting [0], I'd assumed it was in Christoph and Marc's capable
> hands,
... without ever *asking* if that would be true. I assumed this idea to
be dead because last year's discussion on -newmaint showed that most DDs
were against that proposa
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:52:02PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > > The top complaints I'm readin
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:38:18AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > And, BTW, the buildd admins of the experimental buildds are in touch
> > with the buildd admins of the unstable buildds - and I discussed that
> > matter with Ryan and James before setti
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:17:53AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > ftbfs.de is dealing with volatile, experimental buildd's, non official
> > > architectures. Thing that I'd have personally liked to see dealt with
> > > by debian.org and DSA. Sadly
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > This isn't prohibited or prevented by the current proposal. Moreover, it
> > explicitly lists the FD and DAM members as people who can implement what
> > you are proposing here.
>
> So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
> som
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:28:24AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> So propose something that implements it, rather than implementing
> something different and then saying we can change it later. It's always
> easier to change things before they start.
At some point you have to actually start however
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:39:52PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Oh my, you must really fear losing this vote, eh?
And there's the usual spin. Not everything's about who has power over
whom, Joerg. At least try to have the courage to stand up in public for
what you do in private.
Cheers,
aj
s
On 11095 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 01:17:23PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Why not, he didn't ask for any reaction from FD, NM or DAM before proposing,
>> so I very much blame him for not having a good proposal in the vote...
> Okay, I've been avoiding this issue, bu
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:52:02PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > > The top
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> * how many are still active ?
> * how many are actually DD that never reuploaded thoses packages with
> their @d.o address ?
> * how many are actually DD that do not use their @d.o address ?
> * how many are not in NM ?
> * how many would be in NM if NM wasn't
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
>> 1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we should be
>>striving to have fewer classes.
>
> Does it really? as pointed out earlier in threads about this we have 900+
> non-DD maintainers. so it se
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
> > >
> > > 1. it has been proposed by AJ
> > >
On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
> >
> > 1. it has been proposed by AJ
> > 2. it is too detailed (the micromanagment argument)
>
> I'd better complain then.
>
> 1
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we're voting for the proposal on the basis that all it creates is a
> governance structure and everything else will be at the discretion of the
> people involved, the proposal should *say* that rather than laying out a
> bunch of initial policy. It ins
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
>
> 1. it has been proposed by AJ
> 2. it is too detailed (the micromanagment argument)
I'd better complain then.
1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we s
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> For example, if a DM wants to later become a full DD, so far as I can
>> tell they get no automatic credit for being a DM. While an AM could
>> take that into account, it shouldn't have to rely on an AM to
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, if a DM wants to later become a full DD, so far as I can
> tell they get no automatic credit for being a DM. While an AM could
> take that into account, it shouldn't have to rely on an AM to evaluate
> that. It should be a natural next step
I find most of this mail very unfortunate, but since I'm one of the people
who doesn't like the current proposal, I wanted to call out this point:
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ] 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights
> ] -
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 01:17:23PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Why not, he didn't ask for any reaction from FD, NM or DAM before proposing,
> so I very much blame him for not having a good proposal in the vote...
Okay, I've been avoiding this issue, but the above's an outright lie,
and since DAM and
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:05:51AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 10:38]:
> > have gotten involved earlier. In the mean time, this vote involves only
> > acceptance of the 'principle', the real implementation can evolve and
> > possibly get integrated in
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> However, in the DM case, you didn't speak first with the people knowing
>> about the issues, but tried a rewrite from scratch
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 10:38]:
> Agreed it makes sense to distribute the load on more shoulders. It doesn't
> make sense to do it on non .d.o machines and it doesn't make sense to have
> two wanna-build instances.
I disagree to that. For example, it is far easier to try thin
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
> > > speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
> >
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070729 10:18]:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > ftbfs.de is dealing with volatile, experimental buildd's, non official
> > > architectures. Thing that I'd have personally liked to see dealt with
> > > by debian.org and DSA. Sadly, DSA is AW
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > ftbfs.de is dealing with volatile, experimental buildd's, non official
> > architectures. Thing that I'd have personally liked to see dealt with
> > by debian.org and DSA. Sadly, DSA is AWOL/unresponsive/whatever. Unlike
>
> FWIW, DSA has about noth
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 14:57]:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
> > speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
> > Rewirting from scratch is mostly not a good idea.
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Why are you setting up a buildd network not handled by the buildd admins
> > and by DSA ? (No need to reply, it's just to show you the parallel)
>
> Nice ad-hominem. It's always a pleasure to see how easily you fall in
> those traps when you don't have proper argument
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 02:32:12PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 10:02]:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > > How to integrate a concept of DM then?
> > > >
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 03:24:11PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > - step 2: waiting for an AM.
>
> > Step 2: is not long nowadays, maybe 1 month. Well, if people can't
> > wait a month, then they should not help Debian-we-release-every-10-years
> > in the first place
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> - step 2: waiting for an AM.
> Step 2: is not long nowadays, maybe 1 month. Well, if people can't
> wait a month, then they should not help Debian-we-release-every-10-years
> in the first place ;)
I disagree. I was advocated on 7 Mar 2007. I then waited 79 days during wh
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 10:02]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > How to integrate a concept of DM then?
> > > --
> > >
> > > First - by starting in the right area -
* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070728 10:02]:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > How to integrate a concept of DM then?
> > --
> >
> > First - by starting in the right area - getting it into the NM system by
> > talking to all those
Hi,
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> How to integrate a concept of DM then?
> --
>
> First - by starting in the right area - getting it into the NM system by
> talking to all those involved. There is FrontDesk, DAM and also the
> NM-Committee, the la
As a matter of a fact, I agree with your mail quite fully, and people
that read me about this already won't be surprised. There is though some
bits that you address that wasn't discussed recently yet, so I'd like to
comment on them.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 01:38:02AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
80 matches
Mail list logo
