On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 00:51 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> why do you even consider such uploads suitable for unstable? That's
> something
> which should go to experimental.
With packages from experimental, users do not get updates by default
even for packages installed from experimental and/or
> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose writes:
Matthias> why do you even consider such uploads suitable for
Matthias> unstable? That's something which should go to
Matthias> experimental. And I would like to see some automatic
Matthias> demotion from unstable to experimental for pac
On 12.11.19 00:00, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Moritz" == Moritz Mühlenhoff writes:
Moritz> Scott Kitterman schrieb:
>> One maintainer doesn't get to block the removal of an entire
>> stack like Qt4. I think there's a reasonable point of discussion
>> about when RoQA is appropria
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 06:00:18PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Moritz> We should even work towards automating this further; if a
> Moritz> package is RC-buggy for longer than say a year (with some
> Moritz> select exceptions) it should just get auto-removed from the
> Moritz> archiv
> "Moritz" == Moritz Mühlenhoff writes:
Moritz> Scott Kitterman schrieb:
>> One maintainer doesn't get to block the removal of an entire
>> stack like Qt4. I think there's a reasonable point of discussion
>> about when RoQA is appropriate, but there comes a time when stuff
5 matches
Mail list logo
