* Matthew Wilcox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060914 14:02]:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:38:39AM +0300, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> > However, the most recent publications indicate that volunteer incentive
> > is not a well understood area of economics. In fact, it's one of the hot
> > topics that economist
Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 01:38:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Enrique Zanardi writes ("Re: Release management - technical"):
> > > On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > ...
> > > > I think we ca
At 5:38 AM -0700 6/22/98, Ian Jackson wrote:
>David Engel writes ("Re: Release management - technical"):
>> On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > Q. What are we trying to achieve ?
>> >
>> > A. There are two possibili
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 01:38:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Enrique Zanardi writes ("Re: Release management - technical"):
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> ...
> > > I think we can only do one of these. With hamm we're doi
! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
> Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Craig Sanders [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 4:17 PM
> > To: Ian Jackson
> &
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We should continue to have `long term goals', and I applaud people who
> work towards them, but we must be able to make a release even when
> they are not met. It is better to have a release now and goals later
> than no release now and goals later !
and
Enrique Zanardi writes ("Re: Release management - technical"):
> On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
> > I think we can only do one of these. With hamm we're doing the
> > latter; in the future I think we should do the former.
>
>
Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> I think that in order to make sense of what's being said here we need
> to step back a bit, and think about abstractions rather than
> implementation. Lots of people (myself included) have been posting
> rather detailed proposals.
>
> Q. What are we trying to achieve ?
>
> Incoming -> unstable -> unreleased -> stable
100% agree.
some times unstable is so stable, that many people use it. this is bad,
if it's stable, it should have been released.
some times unstable is absolutelyy not useable, and it breaks my system
(grep bug, bash bug, new xxx without new l
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Q. What are we trying to achieve ?
>
> A. There are two possibilities that I can see
> - Timely and good-quality releases, or
> - Releases which meet some predefined set of goals.
>
> I think we can only do one of these. With
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think that in order to make sense of what's being said here we need
> to step back a bit, and think about abstractions rather than
> implementation. Lots of people (myself included) have been posting
> rather detailed proposals.
>
>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: We need to think about what kinds of thing need to happen to a package
: or to a distribution before we release it as `stable'.
Yes.
I find it impossible to completely divorce the conceptual model from any
reference to details of the present or any pro
On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Scott Barker wrote:
> Ian Jackson said:
> > We *must* provide a tree which contains only the most rcently
> > bug-fixed versions of everything, and we *must not* require people to
> > download broken packages only to have to download good ones too.
>
> ok. This is important,
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> I agree with Ian--putting the debian-1.0 tree under private makes it
> difficult for it to double as our bleeding edge a.out distribution.
> (If we had a separate a.out bleeding edge tree, I'd agr
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 22:05 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: debian-1.0 "):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > it might create problems for the mirrors.
>
> I think that while it is in its current state, 1.0 should not be where
> mirrors will fi
> > > > Agreed. I don't think the location should be decided by individual
> > > > package maintainers, though they will be free to suggest a location.
> > >
> > > The Section field from the control file can be used for this.
> >
> > If the SECTION field is not going to reliably contain the sec
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >Somehow the FTP site maintainer's programs also need to know which
> > >section (subdirectory) the files should go in. I
J. H. M. Dassen writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
>[Ian Murdock writes:]
> >From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >I think we should start with an a.out 1.0 tree. This will give us a
> >bleeding edge
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >Somehow the FTP site maintainer's programs also need to know which
> >section (subdirectory) the files should go in. I suggest that this
> >information be provided by the `overrides' file on the FTP site, which
> >is already used by the npd
>From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
>> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
>> If so, I'd agree that this is what we should do (an
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 13:16 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
> If so, I'd agree that this is what we
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
> If so, I'd agree that this is what we should do (and what I'll do
> if we all think this is the best option).
I think we s
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 01:04 GMT
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If this is true then we need to copy the whole of the binary area from
0.93 to 1.0, so that 1.0 instantly becomes the `bleeding-edge'
distribution.
Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0
On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We need to decide what information the package maintainer needs to
> supply to the FTP site maintainer for the correct placement of the
> package.
>[...]
> I don't particularly care about how this is represented in the
> (machine-readable) dchanges forma
24 matches
Mail list logo
