On Thu, 7 May 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >On 7 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> >> Fine. But the moment any package ``ignores'' policy and
> >> insists policy is not broken, so should not be fixed, I shall file
> >> bugs against the package.
> >
> >
Dale Scheetz wrote:
>On 7 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>>Fine. But the moment any package ``ignores'' policy and
>> insists policy is not broken, so should not be fixed, I shall file
>> bugs against the package.
>
>Which I will happily reasign to Policy.
Hang on, Dale. J
On 7 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Fine. But the moment any package ``ignores'' policy and
> insists policy is not broken, so should not be fixed, I shall file
> bugs against the package.
Which I will happily reasign to Policy.
>
> As the technical committee would look at th
Hi,
This is getting nowhere. Well, when the constitution is
ratified, maybe one can see how much support there is for more
strongly ratifying the policy documents. As it stands, I have no
motivation to work on the ``good practices'' document unless I have
any indication it is going to
On 6 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> On 6 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Dale> During our past discusion on these issues I made direct requests
> Dale> for clarifying statements about priorities of policies. I
> Dale
Manoj, you are really 'hitting the nail on the head' with the
stuff that you have written lately (and I will admit to not
necessarily recogniaing the significance of what you have
written in the recent past)...
On Mon, May 04, 1998 at 01:01:17AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Raul" ==
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You suddenly seem to be arguing that policy never be amended
> since we may just be screwing it up.
Er... no. Not even close.
Later,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> The issue isn't trust. The issue is understanding.
I think I am willing to give new maintainers the benfit of
doubt as to whether they can excercise enough judgment to know if
they understand a subject well enough to go and
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul> You honestly think this is good enough for new developers? I
> Raul> must confess that I'm not really in touch with the sort of
> Raul> things they would think.
>
> Of course. You gotta trust people some time. I think we give
> folks the
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would be willing to say that we leave determination of the point
>> when following policy is detrimental to the package to the
>> maintainers themselves; so Dale could decide that strip
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul> I've mostly agreed with (Buddha and Philip's) statement you
> Raul> quoted a few days ago which talks about what to do when policy
> Raul> doesn't apply properly. I think it has a weakness: in creating
> Raul> the rules for how "debian-policy" is
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Policy SHOULD be followed, in the general case. I'd even agree
Raul> that in a large number of specific cases (but not all), policy
Raul> MUST be followed. You're the one that has decided that this
Raul> means that it SHOULD NOT be foll
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In any case, policy is not meant to be followed anyway.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul> Cut it out, Manoj.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? You should be happy I'm on your side now. Were you not objecting
> to th
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In any case, policy is not meant to be followed anyway.
Raul> Cut it out, Manoj.
Why? You should be happy I'm on your side now. Were you not
objecting to the statement that polic
14 matches
Mail list logo
