Joël Krähemann:
> Hi all
>
> Seriously, this is the wrong approach.
>
> I am the upstream of a package. I have dependencies but am unsure
> about how to monetize my software or fund my dependencies.
>
> Might be I decide once to stop work full-time on it. Just because
> someone feels uncomfortab
Hi all
Seriously, this is the wrong approach.
I am the upstream of a package. I have dependencies but am unsure
about how to monetize
my software or fund my dependencies.
Might be I decide once to stop work full-time on it. Just because
someone feels uncomfortable
about the situation of a partic
Let's salvaging developers.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:14 PM Chris Knadle wrote:
>
> Tobias Frost:
> > Hallo everyone,
> >
> > The yesteday uploaded Developer's Reference has now got a chapter
> > about "Package Salvaging". [1]
> >
> > So, package salvaging is now implemented and ready to be used,
Tobias Frost:
> Hallo everyone,
>
> The yesteday uploaded Developer's Reference has now got a chapter
> about "Package Salvaging". [1]
>
> So, package salvaging is now implemented and ready to be used,
> and whenever you find some package in need, you can now consider to
> salvage it for the bene
Tobias Frost wrote on 26/09/2018:
> The yesteday uploaded Developer's Reference has now got a chapter
> about "Package Salvaging".
Thanks Tobias for this work, I truly think Debian will benefit a lot
from it. I already filed an ITS: #909663. The Developer's Reference was
smooth to follow, I just
Gregor wrote:
> > The yesteday uploaded Developer's Reference has now got a chapter
> > about "Package Salvaging". [1]
>
> That's excellent news. Thanks Tobi for driving this inititiative!
Indeed — congratulations and thank you for seeing this all the way
through.
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:45:45 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> The yesteday uploaded Developer's Reference has now got a chapter
> about "Package Salvaging". [1]
That's excellent news. Thanks Tobi for driving this inititiative!
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Devel
Hallo everyone,
The yesteday uploaded Developer's Reference has now got a chapter
about "Package Salvaging". [1]
So, package salvaging is now implemented and ready to be used,
and whenever you find some package in need, you can now consider to
salvage it for the benefit of Debian and our users.
Hi,
Merge-request for developers-reference is now available:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/5
Kudos to all who helped me making this possible!
--
tobi
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 06:54:22 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> >> in case the maintainer disagrees they have only to say so (see below).
> > "they only have to say so"? The former sounds more like
> > en_${germanspeakingcountry} to me (says the en_AT speaker to the
> > native one ...)
> It sounds quit
gregor herrmann writes:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 22:22:25 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
>
>> You will have to use your judgement as to whether a given
>> combination factors constitutes neglect;
>
> "combination of factors"?
correct
>
>> in case the maintainer disagrees they have only to say so (se
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 22:22:25 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> You will have to use your judgement as to whether a given
> combination factors constitutes neglect;
"combination of factors"?
> in case the maintainer disagrees they have only to say so (see below).
"they only have to say so"? The fo
Tobias Frost writes:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 08:17:24AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
>> OK, I understand the reasoning, but I hope we can improve the wording on
>> both sides a bit so it's clear that the rule is "use your judgement, and
>> if you're not sure about your judgement, refer to these
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 08:17:24AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Tobias Frost writes:
>
> >
> > The split was actually thought to be a feature [1] :)
> > It was to make the process itself less normative about the actual
> > (concrete) figures/criterias, but still give safe figures to e.g
> > neco
Tobias Frost writes:
>
> The split was actually thought to be a feature [1] :)
> It was to make the process itself less normative about the actual
> (concrete) figures/criterias, but still give safe figures to e.g
> necomers they can rely on, and on the other side enable more advanced
> people to
Dear all,
so, I think we are now ready to proceed in the topic of the salaving
process...
The changes on the text on the etherpad and wiki were mostly only of
editorial nature, like spelling, grammar and wiki syntax fixes and
rewordings to make it less awkyard for native speakers. Again, thanks t
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 03:23:53PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 06:06:47PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > [2] https://wiki.debian.org/PackageSalvaging
>
> Please consider adding a content license to this page. See the bottom of
> [1] for an example of how to do this. It
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 06:06:47PM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
[2] https://wiki.debian.org/PackageSalvaging
Please consider adding a content license to this page. See the bottom of
[1] for an example of how to do this. It would make moving stuff to/from
this page to other things like the dev-ref
Hi David,
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:43:01PM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Tobias Frost writes:
>
> > Hallo everyone,
> >
> > This is a gentle reminder regarding the Salvaging Process discussion!
> >
> > For all of those, who did not yet have read the proposal, but still want
> > to participate
Tobias Frost writes:
> Hallo everyone,
>
> This is a gentle reminder regarding the Salvaging Process discussion!
>
> For all of those, who did not yet have read the proposal, but still want
> to participate in the discussion, please step forward now, as I plan to
> start to work on finalizing the
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 11:27:41AM +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:
seems so as the discussion is more quiet than I've anticipated...
So as an optimist, I'm assuming this is because the proposal has
kind of rough consensus, so I will plan now for the next steps.
I've been meaning to poke at this a li
Subject: developers-reference: Announcement for adding "Package Salvaging"
process to dev-ref
Source: developers-reference
Severity: normal
Dear dev-ref maintainers,
as you've probably saw on -dev, I'm currently working to implement the
Package Salvaging process. The discussion is still ongoing
Hallo everyone,
This is a gentle reminder regarding the Salvaging Process discussion!
For all of those, who did not yet have read the proposal, but still want
to participate in the discussion, please step forward now, as I plan to
start to work on finalizing the text after Saturday, September 1st
On 21/08/18 14:05, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Dear fellow Debinites,
>
> many of you know already that there is currently a discussion about
> establishing a package salvaging process within Debian. The discussion
> is taking place at debian-devel, but I'd like make people aware which
> are not subs
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 07:39:24AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Dear Tobias,
>
> > [1] https://pad.riseup.net/p/debian-salvaging-packages-keep
>
> Thanks for moving forward with your proposal. I'll have a poke at the
> Etherpad in the upcoming days or so.
>
> Whilst you outline a plan of sorts, do
Dear Tobias,
> [1] https://pad.riseup.net/p/debian-salvaging-packages-keep
Thanks for moving forward with your proposal. I'll have a poke at the
Etherpad in the upcoming days or so.
Whilst you outline a plan of sorts, do you have any rough timetable
in your head that you would like to share? Tha
Dear -devel,
seems so as the discussion is more quiet than I've anticipated...
So as an optimist, I'm assuming this is because the proposal has
kind of rough consensus, so I will plan now for the next steps.
The discussion can and should of course continue, especially as it is
vacation time atm.
On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 01:20:47PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On August 5, 2018 7:41:41 AM UTC, Tobias Frost wrote:
> >
> >Yes, the TC has the power to decide ultimately about maintainership
> >when
> >there is an dispute and if involved parties failed find consesus. The
> >proposed pro
Scott Kitterman:
> [...]
>
> So a maintainer misses one email and anything goes?
>
The maintainer would get no less than two emails AFAICT:
* One when the ITS is filed.
* Another one after 21 days when the maintainer is *explicitly* CC'ed
on the nmudiff for the NMU (that is required to c
On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 02:47:58PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On August 5, 2018 2:17:04 PM UTC, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 01:20:47PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> Package 'salvaging' is about an involuntary change of maintainer
> >involving
> >> someone who is
On August 5, 2018 2:17:04 PM UTC, Adam Borowski wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 01:20:47PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Package 'salvaging' is about an involuntary change of maintainer
>involving
>> someone who is sufficiently active in the project not to be MIA.
>It's
>> fundamentally dif
On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 01:20:47PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Package 'salvaging' is about an involuntary change of maintainer involving
> someone who is sufficiently active in the project not to be MIA. It's
> fundamentally different.
>
> I suspect it's constitutionally sufficient for the T
On August 5, 2018 7:41:41 AM UTC, Tobias Frost wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 06:50:28AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>> Since it's explicitly in the Debian constitution that the TC is the
>> decider of package maintainership, how does a dev-ref change overcome
>> that?
>>
>
>Yes, the TC
On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 06:50:28AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> Since it's explicitly in the Debian constitution that the TC is the
> decider of package maintainership, how does a dev-ref change overcome
> that?
>
Yes, the TC has the power to decide ultimately about maintainership when
ther
On August 5, 2018 6:17:12 AM UTC, Tobias Frost wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>tl;dr: at the BoF the proposal seems to be uncontroversial at the
>session. So we will go forward with discussing it and propose a patch
>to e.g dev-ref (if we're still aiming for dev-ref then)
>
>Generally, the people a
gregor herrmann writes:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:40:49 +0800, Tobias Frost wrote:
>
>> A package is eligible for salvaging if it is in clear need of some love
>> and care, i.e. there are open bugs, missing upstream releases, or there
>> is work needed from a quality-assurance perspective; AND the
Guillem Jover writes:
>
>> [c] Level of activity should be defined in favor of the maintainer if in
>> doubt. A maintainer may ask for help or welcome a NMU. This counts as
>> activity with respect to salvage criteria. If a package lacks uploads,
>> there is no visible bug triaging, and - if app
Dear all,
The BoF has happened, thanks for your participation and all your
valuable input!
Thanks to the Video Team, the BoF recording is now available at [1], and
the html version of the gobby document can be found by following [2].
I did not yet find the time to condense the input from the BoF
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:29:48PM +0800, Tobias Frost wrote:
Rest assured, we'll take plenty of notes on gobby, have video
recordings to revisit* everything then transfer the consensus finding
to -devel.
But just to avoid ambiguity: Use any channel avaible to you to
participate to the discussio
On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 12:42:35 +0800, David Bremner wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > Some packages might not show activity for longish periods of time,
> > because maintainers batch changes, for example to do at least one
> > upload per release, with general packaging and QA updates/improvements
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:40:49 +0800, Tobias Frost wrote:
> tl;dr: Let's bring the package salvage process discussed some years earlier to
> life!
Indeed!
Thanks for picking up this topic.
> There will be a BoF at DebConf18 Thursday, August 2nd 11:00 in Room Xueshan
> [a]
> for dicussion and fin
Guillem Jover writes:
> Some packages might not show activity for longish periods of time,
> because maintainers batch changes, for example to do at least one
> upload per release, with general packaging and QA updates/improvements,
> etc.
>
> Also there might be bugs open that are difficutl to f
Hi!
I think the proposal sounds very good in general. I just might see a
problem with one of the requirements, which seems open to potential
conflict.
On Sun, 2018-07-29 at 17:40:49 +0800, Tobias Frost wrote:
> Reasons to salvage a package
>
> A package is eligible f
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 03:25 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Dear Tobi,
>
> > There will be a BoF at DebConf18 Thursday, August 2nd 11:00 in Room
> > Xueshan [a]
> > for dicussion and fine tuning. (We will likely have video
> > coverage.)
> >
> > I'm sending out our proposal draft already now so you wi
Dear Tobi,
> There will be a BoF at DebConf18 Thursday, August 2nd 11:00 in Room Xueshan
> [a]
> for dicussion and fine tuning. (We will likely have video coverage.)
>
> I'm sending out our proposal draft already now so you will be able to
> come well-prepared to the to the BoF, as we want to ha
Dear Tobi,
> There will be a BoF at DebConf18 Thursday, August 2nd 11:00 in Room Xueshan
> [a]
> for dicussion and fine tuning. (We will likely have video coverage.)
>
> I'm sending out our proposal draft already now so you will be able to
> come well-prepared to the to the BoF, as we want to h
46 matches
Mail list logo
