On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 06:15:00PM +0000, Micah Anderson wrote: > * Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> [071118 00:17]: > > On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 07:28:00AM +0000, Micah Anderson wrote: > > > * Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> [071117 09:28]: > > > > On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 05:00:56PM +0000, Micah Anderson wrote: > > > > > How long should people wait until "about to be added to the DD one..." > > > > > would be considered too long and adding to the DM one to get around the > > > > > wait is reasonable? > > > > > > > > What if we fix that problem, and concentrate only on that one, instead > > > > of trying to circumvent it with ersatz ? > > > > > > What if we do both? Or are we unable to do two things at once? > > I feel as if what I said here still is a valid question that was > unanswered in your email. Because I felt this was obvious. Adding one person to the DM or DD keyring requires the same amount of work, so why shouldn't we add him _directly_ in the proper place ? > > > > We're doing exactly what I feared: DM will prevent people from fixing > > > > the real issues with the NM queue. > > > > > > How exactly is this happening? > > I saw no answer to this question either. Who do you see fixing NM right now ? I see plenty of people trying to make DM work though. > > I agree that DM for NMs past P&P make sense, a lot. > > So why are you blocking this again? he's not _just_ past P&P, he's at the: P&P + T&S + FD Approved + DAM Approved stage. If you don't get the difference, please note that I do. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgprea9bvAgPf.pgp
Description: PGP signature