On 20050717T213903-0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 20050716T195244-0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> That's a far cry different from someone wanting to enforce a
> >> requirement.
> >
> > Who, in this thread, is this hypothetical s
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:14:07AM +0100, Rich Walker wrote:
> Yes, to rely on 1300 developers to all think of your cunning method of
> solving a problem clearly makes sense. After all, to *write down* a
> technique that solves the problem, and make it available to all of them
> would stilt their c
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 20050716T195244-0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> That's a far cry different from someone wanting to enforce a
>> requirement.
>
> Who, in this thread, is this hypothetical someone?
Right. Manoj asked: why should we have a requirement? S
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:54:48PM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:42:44 +0200, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > What's with the recent push to get every little things written
> >down into policy, so the developer no longer is req
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:35:14 +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 20050717T025707-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A little reading comprehension on your part would help a bit
>> here. Hint: dict policy would help.
>>
>> The discussion started wuth a wuestion of _policy_
On 20050717T025707-0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> A little reading comprehension on your part would help a bit
> here. Hint: dict policy would help.
>
> The discussion started wuth a wuestion of _policy_. Once you
> comprehend what that word means, you'll see what Thomas meant.
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:11:34 +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 20050716T195244-0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> That's a far cry different from someone wanting to enforce a
>> requirement.
> Who, in this thread, is this hypothetical someone?
> As far as I can tell
On 20050716T195244-0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> That's a far cry different from someone wanting to enforce a
> requirement.
Who, in this thread, is this hypothetical someone?
As far as I can tell, this thread started with a simple question: is
there a policy for a certain thing? There were
Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, to rely on 1300 developers to all think of your cunning method of
> solving a problem clearly makes sense. After all, to *write down* a
> technique that solves the problem, and make it available to all of them
> would stilt their creativity, hinder th
On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[cranky but funny stuff]
If there ever is a blackball commitee, Manoj of all people belongs on it. :-)
Cheers,
- Michael
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:43:46 +0100, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You scale an organisation, I understand, by removing the *need* for
> everyone in it to be a genius at everything it does.
> Hence the comment about the US army: "designed by genius to be run
> by sergeants".
A
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:14:07 +0100, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What's with the recent push to get every little things written
>>> down into policy, so the develop
On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (As a practicing SubGenius, I like to think of the "ornery, cussing
> Debian", up there with the Two-Fisted Jesus, and the Butting
> Buddha. Others may have other views)
As a practicing Episcopatheist, I like to murmur, "There is no God,
and deb
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I am having a hard time reading this as anything but a non sequitur.
>>
>> Umm; it follows more from Manoj's comment than yours.
>
> Ah. OK.
Should have sent two postings :->
>
>> > Person
On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am having a hard time reading this as anything but a non sequitur.
>
> Umm; it follows more from Manoj's comment than yours.
Ah. OK.
> > Personally, I prefer for a solution to be demonstrated to work, both
> > socially and technically, be
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> What's with the recent push to get every little things writ
On 7/15/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What's with the recent push to get every little things written
> >> down into policy, so the developer no longer
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What's with the recent push to get every little things written
>> down into policy, so the developer no longer is required to have an
>> ability to think, or exercise a
On 15-Jul-05, 11:12 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's with the recent push to get every little things written
> down into policy, so the developer no longer is required to have an
> ability to think, or exercise any judgement whatsoever?
Probably the growing n
On 7/15/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's with the recent push to get every little things written
> down into policy, so the developer no longer is required to have an
> ability to think, or exercise any judgement whatsoever?
Welcome to the software indus
Hi,
* sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-15 20:43]:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 08:11:15PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > no of course not but it would be good to have a reference
> > value.
>
> it seems something that would be most appropriate as a guideline
> supplied in the debian developers'
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 08:11:15PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> no of course not but it would be good to have a reference
> value.
it seems something that would be most appropriate as a guideline
supplied in the debian developers' reference.
sean
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital s
Hi,
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-15 20:08]:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:42:44 +0200, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Hi, is there a policy for bugs which are unreproducible? I mean how
> > long this kind of bug should be open? There are bugs who are
> > unreproducible
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:42:44 +0200, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
What's with the recent push to get every little things written
down into policy, so the developer no longer is required to have an
ability to think, or exercise any judgement whatsoever?
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:42:44 +0200, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, is there a policy for bugs which are unreproducible? I mean how
> long this kind of bug should be open? There are bugs who are
> unreproducible for over a year and the version increased to a major
> version during th
Hi,
* Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-15 16:12]:
> > is there a policy for bugs which are unreproducible?
> > I mean how long this kind of bug should be open?
> > There are bugs who are unreproducible for over a year and
> > the version increased to a major version during the time.
>
>
Hi,
> is there a policy for bugs which are unreproducible?
> I mean how long this kind of bug should be open?
> There are bugs who are unreproducible for over a year and
> the version increased to a major version during the time.
I tend to request the user for more info with the new version;
so a
27 matches
Mail list logo
