* Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> [071118 11:50]: > 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 ? If the answer was obvious, I wouldn't have asked the question. I dont think anyone would disagree that if we were given the choice, adding him _directly_ to the proper keyring (DD) would be the preferable one. However, we don't have that choice, and there is a clear backlog for adding people to that keyring. We do have the choice of adding him to the DM keyring, which is a step *up* from where he is now, until he is properly added to the DD keyring, which will be another steup up from DM. > > > > > 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. This makes no sense. I dont see how the request to add this person to DM is causing people to not fix NM, they are totally unrelated. Unless you are making the argument that everyone who eats food is not fixing NM also? > > > 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. "P&P + T&S + FD Approved + DAM Approved stage" = "past P&P" What it sounds like you are saying is that when someone passes P&P they can be added to DM, but when they pass P&P and then pass T&S they can't be added to DM? Passing P&P means passing P&P, it doesn't mean "passing P&P but not passing anything more". Micah
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature