On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 08:57:56PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:03:56 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 05:13:14PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > > > > Backports has now been declared "officially" supported by the project > > > > > as a whole. That made it the collective responsibility of all > > > > > Debian Developers whether or not individuals in particular like it or > > > > > not. > > > > False. > > > So you're saying that a move to debian.org actually does not make it > > > officially part of Debian (even though a lot of blogs are claiming just > > > that)? If that's the case then I agree that there is no collective > > > responsibility. That's good since it eliminates what was going to be a > > > significant additional burden for the security team. > > No, I'm saying that being "officially part of Debian" does not make it > > "officially supported by the project as a whole" or "the cllective > > responsibility of all Debian Developers". > You're missing my point. My concern is the stonewalling of the > collective effort of those working to make backports a well-supported, > user-friendly part of the Debian ecosystem. And all of in the name of a > solved problem: email management. Thank you for volunteering to write the procmail rules for me that discard all emails from bug reports filed only against bpo versions of packages, with no false positives. I trust you will have them available by next week. > Let the collective do its work without interference. Please :) Ah, appeals to the silent majority. How droll. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature