On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:40:47PM -0500, Karl Ramm wrote:
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More insightful words have seldom been spoken on this mailing list.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:52:08AM -0500, Karl Ramm wrote:
> And at this point, even though I'd *love* to turn xscreensaver maintenance
> over to someone I don't like, I still don't think I want you maintaining
> something I type my password into on a regular basis until you learn to
> play well wi
And I'm sure everyone really appreciates that kind of arrogance. You've
just exemplified the very reason why people aren't burning effigies of
me at the moment. Last time I checked (unless I'm completely off here),
users much preferred real progress over pretentious bureaucracy. I
really don't
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:54:02PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (I am sorry to say I don't know the proper protocol in Debian for this--
> do I file a bug report on the package saying there's a new version?)
This is something that is normally worked out on an individual basis between
the Deb
Ari Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I had been taking the full brunt of the responsibility for the
> xscreensaver NMU, but since I was a pre-NM at the time and sponsors of
> uploads are supposed to follow Debian policy as well, he ended up taking
> most of the responsibility. This was a sim
> "Ari" == Ari Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ari> I had been taking the full brunt of the responsibility for
Ari> the xscreensaver NMU, but since I was a pre-NM at the time
Ari> and sponsors of uploads are supposed to follow Debian policy
Ari> as well, he ended up taking m
I had been taking the full brunt of the responsibility for the
xscreensaver NMU, but since I was a pre-NM at the time and sponsors of
uploads are supposed to follow Debian policy as well, he ended up taking
most of the responsibility. This was a similar situation; however, I felt
it was necessa
Andrew Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 06:36:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>> On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 17:50, Ari Pollak wrote:
>> > Didn't you sponsor the upload?
>>
>> No, that was me...
>
> This Colin & Colin confusion has been quite contagious this season,
> hasn't i
> "Ari" == Ari Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> IIRC Ari has caused upset with NMUs before; xscreensaver, I
>> believe. (I express no opinion about whether that upload was a
>> good idea or not.)
Ari> Didn't you sponsor the upload?
Um, so? While yes the sponsor is at
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 09:31:46PM +1100, Andrew Lau wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 06:36:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 17:50, Ari Pollak wrote:
> > > Didn't you sponsor the upload?
> >
> > No, that was me...
>
> This Colin & Colin confusion has been quite contagiou
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 06:36:06PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 17:50, Ari Pollak wrote:
> > Didn't you sponsor the upload?
>
> No, that was me...
This Colin & Colin confusion has been quite contagious this season,
hasn't it? = P
Yours sincerely,
Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau
--
> Firstly, I don't think this is a matter for debian-devel as it doesn't
> involve the project as a whole and would best be dealt with privately.
I usually consult debian-devel or other mailing lists before jumping on to
do NMUs... well, sometimes :P
Private mail do get lost, and there might b
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 17:50, Ari Pollak wrote:
> > IIRC Ari has caused upset with NMUs before; xscreensaver, I believe.
> > (I express no opinion about whether that upload was a good idea or
> > not.)
>
> Didn't you sponsor the upload?
No, that was me...
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 05:50:36PM -0500, Ari Pollak wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > IIRC Ari has caused upset with NMUs before; xscreensaver, I believe.
> > (I express no opinion about whether that upload was a good idea or
> > not.)
>
> Didn't you sponsor the upload?
No. Perhaps that was Col
> IIRC Ari has caused upset with NMUs before; xscreensaver, I believe.
> (I express no opinion about whether that upload was a good idea or
> not.)
Didn't you sponsor the upload?
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 04:41:38PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> If you're complaining that the NMU was handled improperly and that the
> communication/policy should have been better, then it seems you're
> right. The person performing the NMU has already indicated that they
> are sorry they didn't
> "Christian" == Christian Surchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christian> Ari wrote to me in the end of october to ask me about
Christian> my intention about logjam packaging. I had an enormous
Christian> backlog and I could not be able to reply. Then he filed
Christian> a wish
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 11:14:14PM -0500, Ari Pollak wrote:
> Firstly, I don't think this is a matter for debian-devel as it doesn't
> involve the project as a whole and would best be dealt with privately.
I've already written to you. I wanted to share my ideas because I don't
like this situatio
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:47:29AM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2002 Ari made a NMU for logjam 4.0.0+cvs.2002.11.17 and
> another one a few days after that date, IIRC, without a note to me.
> I was handling bugs for logjam, as you can see in BTS (#165281). Build
> failure reported by
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:47:29AM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> Maybe I forgot something... maybe this episode could be seen as not so
> important but it hit me strongly, in particular from the point of view
> of my idea about Our Project and Our Work.
>
> I don't know if I'll take care furthe
Firstly, I don't think this is a matter for debian-devel as it doesn't
involve the project as a whole and would best be dealt with privately.
Secondly, I'd like to apologize to Christian and the Debian project for
not following exact policy. However, in my defense, I did contact
Christian sever
22 matches
Mail list logo
