On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:49:55 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 17:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > maintained has changed considerably over the past few years. In
| > particular, herds are no longer a fallback for when the maintainer
| > (single person) i
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 17:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> maintained has changed considerably over the past few years. In
> particular, herds are no longer a fallback for when the maintainer
> (single person) is not available.
Say what? What the hell is the point of a herd, then? And when did
On Friday 09 September 2005 12:10 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:58:21 +0200 Torsten Veller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Well, i was told that adding the maintainer-needed herd is not a good
> | idea and it is best to remove metadata.xml if no valuable information
> | remains.
> |
>
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:58:21 +0200 Torsten Veller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Well, i was told that adding the maintainer-needed herd is not a good
| idea and it is best to remove metadata.xml if no valuable information
| remains.
|
| I couldn't find information on that. Can somebody explain?
mai
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 17:23:00 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Unfortunately, seems like Ciaran thinks that removing them is the
| only way to go
Uh, no, I said that the ideal thing to do would be to find a new
maintainer, or failing that remove the package. I didn't sa
On Friday 09 September 2005 14:46, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and then what ? if you're proposing removal of packages due solely to no
> maintainer, then we're going to have to slap you around. dont remove
> packages for that reason alone.
Exactly the point. And I follow this request. If that was th
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 09:29 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > and then what ? if you're proposing removal of packages due solely to no
> > maintainer, then we're going to have to slap you around. dont remove
> > packages for that reason alone.
> > -mike
>
> So I guess the idea would then be, how d
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 11:58 +0200, Torsten Veller wrote:
> To me maintainer-needed is always a first step before a package gets
> masked and removed from the tree.
Agreed. Set the herd to maintainer-needed. Since there isn't an actual
maintainer-needed herd, there's no need to add it to herds.xm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 05:58 am, Torsten Veller wrote:
>
>>2)
>>What is the next step after the last maintainer is removed from
>>metadata.xml? Well i announced these packages on -dev. Now i can wait some
>>time (how long?
On Friday 09 September 2005 05:58 am, Torsten Veller wrote:
> 2)
> What is the next step after the last maintainer is removed from
> metadata.xml? Well i announced these packages on -dev. Now i can wait some
> time (how long?) and then?
and then what ? if you're proposing removal of packages due
9.9.2005, 11:58:21, Torsten Veller wrote:
> Well, i was told that adding the maintainer-needed herd is not a good
> idea and it is best to remove metadata.xml if no valuable information
> remains.
> I couldn't find information on that. Can somebody explain?
I don't understand this idea on remo
1)
While removing maintainers from metadata i realised (not for the first
time) that i don't understand metadata :/
I thought it might be a good idea to add a new herd (maintainer-needed)
for packages where the maintainer has left. I think it will make it
easier for bugwranglers to assign bugs
12 matches
Mail list logo
