On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 12:23:51PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/14/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > (...)
> > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David
> > > said that Daniel helped
On 1/14/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> (...)
> > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David
> > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's
> > under Canonical bless.".
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute
> > > back. An individual who happened to work for
On 1/13/06, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute
> > > back. An individual who happened to work for
On 1/13/06, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute
> > back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone
> > employed by the US government contributes t
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please stop trying to twist my words around. Canonical didn't contribute
> back. An individual who happened to work for Canonical did. If someone
> employed by the US government contributes to Debian of his own volition do
> we say that the US government
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:45:48AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> We can't say that Canonical/Ubuntu isn't contributing back. They're,
> as pointed out by some of us. e.g.: David said that Daniel helped him,
> but if he did that in his workhours it's under Canonical bless.
Please stop trying to tw
On 1/13/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:08:52PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > We can't decide how they need to "give us something MORE back" and
> > it's their problem?
>
> Whoever said they need to do that? They just need to stop bragging
> about shit
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:08:52PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> We can't decide how they need to "give us something MORE back" and
> it's their problem?
Whoever said they need to do that? They just need to stop bragging
about shit they don't do. There's at least two ways to accomplish this.
If
On 1/12/06, Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Em Qui, 2006-01-12 às 18:08 -0200, Gustavo Franco escreveu:
> > - Scott's url with patches isn't part of the "give something back"
> > approach that we want. We need to be well informed about patches, but
> > we don't know exactly how;
>
> Don't
Em Qui, 2006-01-12 às 18:08 -0200, Gustavo Franco escreveu:
> - Scott's url with patches isn't part of the "give something back"
> approach that we want. We need to be well informed about patches, but
> we don't know exactly how;
Don't we?
Debian is Ubuntu's upstream, right?
When you modify some
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:31:40PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +,
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:31:40PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > Let's take this one apart and s
On 1/12/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
> > > much.
> >
> > I don't inte
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
> > much.
>
> I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've
>
* Christian Perrier
| No chance that people from Canonical show up over there? I can even
| host (Perrier's bed and breakfast, including cheese)...:)
I doubt it; There's a Ubuntu distro sprint in London that week so
we'll all be very, very busy with discussions and bug fixing on our
own.
--
To
Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've
> yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will be in London
> later this month and would be willing to use that opportunity to civilly
> discuss your concerns fa
For what it's worth, I largely agree with Andrew. Please, show some fire
and some honesty or STFU.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Frans Pop wrote:
> My observations:
> - almost all development effort that may help narrow the gap is done on
> the Ubuntu side, not on the Debian side;
I'm sorry, but I've spent quite a lot of time digging usefull things out
of the dross in Ubuntu patchsets (to the point of exhaustion and extre
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:09:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
> much.
Hello, Andrew.
I don't intend to participate in this type of email argument with you; I've
yet to see it pay off for anyone involved. However, I will
On Thursday 12 January 2006 00:09, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
> much.
What pisses me off is ppl keeping this thread alive without adding new
arguments with as their main goal to widen the gap that is definitely
there, but is al
Let's take this one apart and see what it is that pisses people off so
much.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:57:35AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> There are still rather intense emotional responses to Ubuntu within the
> Debian community, as evidenced in this thread and others.
First a dismissal of d
23 matches
Mail list logo
