I'm not sure whether you mean bug in the strict sense or in the BTS's
sense. Do you think a divergence is a minor bug or a wishlist "bug"? I
disagree that any divergence is a bug, but there may be a request to get
rid of a divergence.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Ben Finney wrote:
> Saying that the plural 3.0 source formats allow Debian tools to
> consume multiple package source formats is equivalent to saying that
> upstream developers have no standard source format to rely on from
> Debian.
Upstream largely don't touch distribution source packages. Where
Ben Finney wrote:
> Care to discuss what tags you plan to use, so an attempt at consensus
> can be made on naming the tags for this purpose?
I'm using a "divergence" usertag, with users [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (so it'll show up on my bugs page, and the
package's bug page -- not ide
Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure whether you mean bug in the strict sense or in the BTS's
> sense. Do you think a divergence is a minor bug or a wishlist "bug"? I
> disagree that any divergence is a bug, but there may be a request to get
> rid of a divergence.
I won't s
On Sunday 18 May 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
> What if we just decide that changes made to upstream sources[1] qualify
> as a bug? A change might be a bug in upstream, or in the debianisation,
> or in Debian for requiring the change. But just call it a bug.
> Everything else follows from that quite natu
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I strongly believe that [...] there is no any urgent need for more
> infrastrucre enhancements and yet another places to look at (like
> teaching BTS/PTS of doing additional DD-upstream communication
> processing which brings even more complexity to the
101 - 106 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
