> > Disagree on almost all points but I find debates about bug severities
> > so utterly demotivating I will defer.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. I certainly didn't want to demotivate you.
> On the contrary, I very much appreciate your work on Debian. Many thanks
> for that!
Oh, you weren't being d
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 09:05:43PM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Disagree on almost all points but I find debates about bug severities
> so utterly demotivating I will defer.
I'm sorry to hear that. I certainly didn't want to demotivate you.
On the contrary, I very much appreciate your work on Debian
Disagree on almost all points but I find debates about bug severities so
utterly demotivating I will defer.
-lamby
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, at 08:19 PM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:35:29PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:49:50 +0200, Niko Tyni wro
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:35:29PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:49:50 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
>
> > While I'm not going to start a severity war (and agree that the package
> > should be fixed), this is not the traditional interpretation. FTBFS bugs
> > have been routinely
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:49:50 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> While I'm not going to start a severity war (and agree that the package
> should be fixed), this is not the traditional interpretation. FTBFS bugs
> have been routinely downgraded to 'important' in the past when the build
> failures were nonde
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:35:33PM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> severity 799718 serious
> thanks
>
> > This package failed to build in the reproducible.debian.net CI setup,
> > and I can reproduce this locally by running the test in a loop while
> > loading the host. Apparently there's a race condit
6 matches
Mail list logo
