On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:44:57AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > This would be better alone, but doesn't fit with the rest of the
> > sentence:
> >
> > "As a last resort, if you don't receive any offers for a few weeks
> > after registering, you can send e-mail to"
> >
> > Here, "don't receive any
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 02:07:12PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 12:41 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >>Alternatively, "If you don't receive any offers within a few weeks of
> >>registering, then you may [not can, you always can]"
> >
> >Always "may"
Hi, Thanks but I have slightly different thought on this section.
Let me start off with some non-essential clarification.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Boo, missed one while proofreading too late at night. I wonder how
> many more are hiding in there.
>
> On
On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 12:41 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Alternatively, "If you don't receive any offers within a few weeks of
registering, then you may [not can, you always can]"
Always "may", too. I'm not sure this changes anything.
Well, you're saying something in that se
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:41:21AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sunday, Aug 17, 2003, at 19:50 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >>I thought
> >>
> >> As a last resort, if you haven't received any offers for a
> >>or
> >>
> >> As a last resort, if you didn't receive any o
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:41:21AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sunday, Aug 17, 2003, at 19:50 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >"A few weeks after registering, if you still haven't received any
> >offers, then you can send e-mail to
> >telling them precisely where you live (give the
On Sunday, Aug 17, 2003, at 19:50 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I thought
As a last resort, if you haven't received any offers for a
or
As a last resort, if you didn't receive any offers for a
are the only acceptable forms in my Japanese junior high school days.
Both of t
Boo, missed one while proofreading too late at night. I wonder how
many more are hiding in there.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 04:58:17AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I am Japanese who typically has no sense for tense and plurals :-)
^^^ ^^^
Those plurals don't match, and it's
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 04:58:17AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I am Japanese who typically has no sense for tense and plurals :-)
>
> But, I do not understand ...
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:05:57PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> ...
> > As a last resort, if you didn't received any offer
Hi,
I am Japanese who typically has no sense for tense and plurals :-)
But, I do not understand ...
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:05:57PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
...
> As a last resort, if you didn't received any offers for a
^^^
>
* Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-14 23:05]:
> I like it better this way, anyway. Nobody else seems to care enough to
> comment.
With your changes this looks ok.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 07:19:17PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 11:55:34PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > New version attached.
> > I also changed the wording regarding the signing coordination page.
>
> No more comments for some days now. Can I go ahead and commi
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 11:55:34PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> New version attached.
> I also changed the wording regarding the signing coordination page.
No more comments for some days now. Can I go ahead and commit the new
version?
Gruesse,
--
*** Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> **
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 05:53:18PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-07 18:02]:
> > I, for one, would rather not have this presented here, but instead
> > leave it to the AM to decide whether to suggest it to an applicant or
> > not. I've had one or two
* Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-07 18:02]:
> I, for one, would rather not have this presented here, but instead
> leave it to the AM to decide whether to suggest it to an applicant or
> not. I've had one or two applicants who should have waited before
> applying, until they had an op
* Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-06 21:46]:
> If you are looking for developers in any specific areas to sign your
> GPG public key, the http://nm.debian.org/gpg.php";>key signing
> coordination page may be of help.
>
> You can also send e-mail to telling
> us where you live exact
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 06:02:28PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:17:22AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:46:22PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > Some time ago I wrote a new version of the devel/join/nm-step2 page.
> > > After asking for a f
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:17:22AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:46:22PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Some time ago I wrote a new version of the devel/join/nm-step2 page.
> > After asking for a first feedback I've forgotten this.
>
> See http://lists.debian.org/debia
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> If we keep this alternative GPG verification method in updated nm-step2
> page, we may want to change this something like:
>
>
> If the above proffered way for verification is impossible, the
s/proffered/preferred/
--
Michael Schult
I also think you need to contact debian-newmaint@lists.debian.org prior
to changing the file.
Here is my input to you.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:46:22PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Some time ago I wrote a new version of the devel/join/nm-step2 page.
> After asking for a first feedback I'v
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:46:22PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Some time ago I wrote a new version of the devel/join/nm-step2 page.
> After asking for a first feedback I've forgotten this.
>
> I post the version now a second time for review. I think it is
> easier to read and understand than
Hi.
Some time ago I wrote a new version of the devel/join/nm-step2 page.
After asking for a first feedback I've forgotten this.
I post the version now a second time for review. I think it is
easier to read and understand than the old one.
I also incorporated the suggestion from Bug#180180: Encou
22 matches
Mail list logo
