hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> There are very few special processes. In fact the only RM-specific
> things are around packaging the tarballs up, while that's described in
> an README. Besides that all processes affect everybody in the community
> and everybody sh
hi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 07:49 -0400, David Soria Parra wrote:
> I wonder if we really need two RMs. This two-RM-thing was introduced
> back when I was busy with different things at work, university,
> live, ... when Lukas stepped in t
On 2012-09-17, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 17.09.2012 17:36, schrieb Johannes Schl?ter:
>> There are very few special processes. In fact the only RM-specific
>> things are around packaging the tarballs up, while that's described in
>> an README.
>
> Does this have to be manual process? Is ther
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 17:45 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 17.09.2012 17:36, schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
> > There are very few special processes. In fact the only RM-specific
> > things are around packaging the tarballs up, while that's described in
> > an README.
>
> Does this have to be
Am 17.09.2012 17:36, schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
> There are very few special processes. In fact the only RM-specific
> things are around packaging the tarballs up, while that's described in
> an README.
Does this have to be manual process? Is there something in it that
cannot be described in a M
Hi,
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 17:05 +0200, jpauli wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Herman Radtke wrote:
> >> David, I think you're experienced enough to fill this role alone.
> >
> >
> > One benefit to having two RM's is that Julien is learning from DSP. If
> > there is a strong reason to ha
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Herman Radtke wrote:
>> David, I think you're experienced enough to fill this role alone.
>
>
> One benefit to having two RM's is that Julien is learning from DSP. If
> there is a strong reason to have only one RM, then maybe we should consider
> a RM/vice-RM kind
> David, I think you're experienced enough to fill this role alone.
One benefit to having two RM's is that Julien is learning from DSP. If
there is a strong reason to have only one RM, then maybe we should consider
a RM/vice-RM kind of pairing.
--
Herman Radtke
hermanrad...@gmail.com | http://h
Hi,
On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 07:49 -0400, David Soria Parra wrote:
> Let's keep things simple here, stay on topic and debate if we want to
> start with 5.5 and who can RM it.
I wonder if we really need two RMs. This two-RM-thing was introduced
back when I was busy with different things at work, univ
On 2012-09-08, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2012 1:49 PM, "David Soria Parra" wrote:
>
>> As most people know we do not include patches in 5.4 that will break
>> backwards compatibility.
>
> We do not include them anywhere in any future 5.x release either.
> That's clearly define in t
Hi!
On Sep 8, 2012 1:49 PM, "David Soria Parra" wrote:
> As most people know we do not include patches in 5.4 that will break
> backwards compatibility.
We do not include them anywhere in any future 5.x release either.
That's clearly define in the RFC and we won't change that. Feedbacks
from u
On 08.09.2012 13:49, David Soria Parra wrote:
> Let's keep things simple here, stay on topic and debate
> if we want to start with 5.5 and who can RM it.
Hey,
sounds like a really good plan and apart from the probably most-often
named disadvantage, getting people to switch (hard enough to get mino
12 matches
Mail list logo
