On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:52:30PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 09/09/09 at 16:18 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:04:16PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Choosing CC BY-SA would nicely conflict with our existing documentation,
> > > like the Debian new mainta
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:33:54PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> OK, let's try to change the way it is maintained by moving to something
> similar to policy. Several questions need to be addressed.
> - Where should discussions occur? Should we re-use debian-policy@, since
> both documents are
On 09/09/09 at 16:18 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:04:16PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Choosing CC BY-SA would nicely conflict with our existing documentation,
> > like the Debian new maintainer guide (GPL2+) or developers-reference
> > (GPL2+). Wouldn't it be p
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:04:16PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Choosing CC BY-SA would nicely conflict with our existing documentation,
> like the Debian new maintainer guide (GPL2+) or developers-reference
> (GPL2+). Wouldn't it be possible to use CC BY-SA with an additional
> clause allowing t
On 09/09/09 at 21:43 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 9. September 2009, Jon Dowland wrote:
> >> If this was a popular choice (which it doesn't appear to
> >> be); it would be blocked on sorting out the wiki.d.o
> >> content licensing.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 9. September 2009, Jon Dowland wrote:
>> If this was a popular choice (which it doesn't appear to
>> be); it would be blocked on sorting out the wiki.d.o
>> content licensing.
>
> No. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Documentation
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 9. September 2009, Jon Dowland wrote:
> If this was a popular choice (which it doesn't appear to
> be); it would be blocked on sorting out the wiki.d.o
> content licensing.
No. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Documentation/Lenny has a very fine and
sosorted licence situation. A
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 06:28:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
wrote:
> I see some value to a (mostly) self-contained
> documentation, but, if it helps getting contributions from
> more people, we could simply move to wiki.d.o.
If this was a popular choice (which it doesn't appear to
be); it would be bl
On 09/09/09 at 12:42 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Heya,
>
> As I'm one of the people who have at some point volunteered to help with
> the dev-ref, but mostly failed to actually do work, I guess I could say
> a few words, without any pretense of actually knowing better than all
> the oth
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:42:22PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > (A) Purely informational documentation of Debian infrastructure and
> > procedures.
> > This is the easiest kind of content. Once correctness has been verified,
> > not much debate can happen about the information.
> Shoul
Heya,
As I'm one of the people who have at some point volunteered to help with
the dev-ref, but mostly failed to actually do work, I guess I could say
a few words, without any pretense of actually knowing better than all
the other people who have already commented...
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> OK,
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - Where should discussions occur? Should we re-use debian-policy@, since
> both documents are a bit related? Or use another list? I would
> personally prefer to use another list (-policy@ is already quite
> busy), but I could be convinced to use -p
On 07/09/09 at 16:01 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> One thing I didn't say before is that, /in theory/, I'm willing to help with
> maintenance of the devref package if the problem of public-by-default change
> process is addressed. I didn't mention this because I don't want to mislead
> anyone int
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:18:40AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > One thing I didn't say before is that, /in theory/, I'm willing to
> > help with maintenance of the devref package if the problem of
> > public-by-default change process is addressed. I didn't mention
> > this because I don't
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 04:01:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think it's a good idea, at least it's worth trying. That should however
> > not mean that only delegated policy editors can maintain the package...
> > maintainership should still be relatively open like it has always been.
> > I
Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net):
> - When doing talks about something at Debconf or at another conference,
> take the opportunity to review and improve the corresponding dev-ref
> section. (That applies to the i18n chapter of dev-ref, which is
> apparently badly outdated).
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:45:55PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think the devref discussions (incl. bug traffic) need to be moved onto
> > debian-policy. We already have any number of bugs getting redirected from
> > policy to the devref, so it's
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - There are many open bugs, about things that should really be fixed or
> added in dev-ref, but I don't have time to address them (I'm doing
> "please provide a patch and I'll integrate it"-maintainance).
As a co-maintainer, I must recognize that I
Steve Langasek writes:
> I think the devref discussions (incl. bug traffic) need to be moved onto
> debian-policy. We already have any number of bugs getting redirected
> from policy to the devref, so it's not as though there would be a
> massive traffic increase; and it would put the right set
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 08:57:54PM +0200, David Paleino wrote:
> > Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 07 Sep 2009 18:28:11 +0200, a écrit :
> > > We could simply decide that it's deprecated, and use a set of wiki
> > > pages to document our procedures.
> >
> > I would like to raise the fact that Internet is n
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 06:28:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> First, we need to decide whether we want to continue to maintain
> developers-reference. We could simply decide that it's deprecated, and
> use a set of wiki pages to document our procedures. I see some value to
> a (mostly) self-co
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:40:44 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 07 Sep 2009 18:28:11 +0200, a écrit :
> > We could simply decide that it's deprecated, and use a set of wiki
> > pages to document our procedures.
>
> I would like to raise the fact that Internet is not available
>
Lucas Nussbaum, le Mon 07 Sep 2009 18:28:11 +0200, a écrit :
> We could simply decide that it's deprecated, and use a set of wiki
> pages to document our procedures.
I would like to raise the fact that Internet is not available
everywhere, so at least an easy way to get an offline copy of these
wo
Hi,
I'm quite concerned about the state of developers-reference.
- I've basically been the only active maintainer for over a year.
- There are many open bugs, about things that should really be fixed or
added in dev-ref, but I don't have time to address them (I'm doing
24 matches
Mail list logo
