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
5 matches
Mail list logo
