On 05/04/13 14:06, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes ("SI units (was Re: failure to communicate)"):
>> It may actually be useful for the technical committee to review what is
>> on the wiki and make some general statement about Debian's position (if
>&
[ Not answering all occurrences, things got repeated a few times… ]
Thomas Goirand (06/04/2013):
> I've wrote that we should at least address the issue, in a way or
> another, through the next point release if that is safer.
It is not.
> But, are you seriously proposing that we leave the issue
On 04/06/2013 12:16 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Le vendredi, 5 avril 2013 17.52:19, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
>> On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>> And all of these features will only land for the next cycle
>>> with a release in ~= 2 years time.
>> I really hop
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 02:50:19AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>> Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
> >>> the release of wheezy.
> >> Christian,
> >>
> >> Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
> >> to having partitions not aligned t
On 04/05/2013 10:40 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
>>> the release of wheezy.
>> Christian,
>>
>> Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can le
a écrit :
> You want that bug fixed? Great: test the patch, document your tests
I did all that.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684128#103
> gather feedback, get involved
quoting from the above:
I would be interested to hear suggestions as to what sort of tests
of bi
Hi Thomas,
Le vendredi, 5 avril 2013 17.52:19, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> > And all of these features will only land for the next cycle
> > with a release in ~= 2 years time.
>
> I really hope that it wont be the case. That it doesn't go into
> De
On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> The default to base-10 units, is good as majority of the installer
> deals with HDD drives (not SSD) and not RAM.
Come on... it's not! Let's be serious 5 minutes here.
There isn't even a warning about which units are in use.
This fools our users (me
On 04/05/2013 10:40 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead to having
partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary, meaning that your system would be
slow.
If any tools don't r
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:37:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
> > the release of wheezy.
> Christian,
>
> Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
> to having partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 07:28:32AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Can we *PLEASE* stop making new threads. It's getting *REALLY* hard to
> keep playing whack-a-mole with my bozo bin.
Fix your mailer… I see precisely one thread, correctly linked together
via message-id and references headers, wit
On 4 April 2013 20:47, wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:09:04 +0200
> Christian PERRIER wrote:
>
>> This mail is a very good argument to confirm that overcomplicated
>> methods to make your point will just fail.
>>
>> If you have a point to make it, make ti. Once. With facts.
>
> I supplied plenty
Daniel Pocock writes ("SI units (was Re: failure to communicate)"):
> It may actually be useful for the technical committee to review what is
> on the wiki and make some general statement about Debian's position (if
> they haven't done so in the past), and that can gui
On 04/05/2013 04:43 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Nothing proves that the patches you proposed will be ignored *after*
> the release of wheezy.
Christian,
Not fixing this bug would be a very bad move, because it can lead
to having partitions not aligned to a 4K boundary, meaning that
your system
Can we *PLEASE* stop making new threads. It's getting *REALLY* hard to
keep playing whack-a-mole with my bozo bin.
Keep it all on the same thread. We don't need to 5 threads about this
nonsense. It's starting to get annoying.
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:26:29AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> ---
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:26:29AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> It may actually be useful for the technical committee to review what is
> on the wiki and make some general statement about Debian's position (if
> they haven't done so in the past), and that can guide the way similar
> bugs are class
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/04/13 22:43, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting ian_br...@fastmail.net (ian_br...@fastmail.net):
>
>> If Debian bug report #684128 proves anything, it is that you will never
>> convince anyone with technical argument, facts advanced in support o
Quoting ian_br...@fastmail.net (ian_br...@fastmail.net):
> If Debian bug report #684128 proves anything, it is that you will never
> convince anyone with technical argument, facts advanced in support of
Sorry, but Debian bug #684128 only proves one thing : that we (the D-I
team) were mostly tryin
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:09:04 +0200
Christian PERRIER wrote:
> This mail is a very good argument to confirm that overcomplicated
> methods to make your point will just fail.
>
> If you have a point to make it, make ti. Once. With facts.
I supplied plenty of facts.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/
19 matches
Mail list logo
