Hi Steve,
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:44:33AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>> Every kernel upload changing the ABI goes through NEW.
>
>> The typical situation here is that code that has the same set of DFSG
>> bugs is already in place and so it
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 10:57 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > With "Like this" I mean packages that have been held back in NEW for a
> > very long time without response or REJECTED with an reason not
> > acceptable to the maintainer? Does mediating this
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With "Like this" I mean packages that have been held back in NEW for a
> very long time without response or REJECTED with an reason not
> acceptable to the maintainer? Does mediating this kind of issues fall
> under the authority of the TC, or should t
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The typical situation here is that code that has the same set of DFSG
>> bugs is already in place and so it is questionable of what a reject
>> really achieves (i.e. does the archive become more DFSG-compliant or
>> not) and quite typically fixes some
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:44:33AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Every kernel upload changing the ABI goes through NEW.
> The typical situation here is that code that has the same set of DFSG
> bugs is already in place and so it is questionable of what a reject
> reall
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Every kernel upload changing the ABI goes through NEW.
The typical situation here is that code that has the same set of DFSG
bugs is already in place and so it is questionable of what a reject
really achieves (i.e. does the archive become more DFSG-compliant or
not) and qu
6 matches
Mail list logo
