Re: Upcoming FTPMaster meeting
- To: olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Upcoming FTPMaster meeting
- From: Svante Signell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:02:52 +0100
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20110212100453.GT645@alien.local>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20110207155636.GE18556@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org> <20110210054122.GI645@alien.local> <20110210102419.GK26548@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org> <20110212100453.GT645@alien.local>
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 11:04 +0100, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:24:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 06:41:25AM +0100, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net
> > wrote:
> > > What's so bad about someone speaking up? They keep bringing this up.
> > > If nobody reacts, it's a sure sign nobody cares, and they are free
> > > to drop it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the whole
> > > point of bringing it up at all...
Do you think this is the plan? kfreebsd seems to have gained momentum
within Debian, but not Hurd.
> > First off, claiming that we got loads of newly interested
> > users/developers recently isn't a good approach, it was shot down by
> > Marco immediately.
> Yes, the wording wasn't ideal. Still better than no reaction at all
At least some progress is made, but the patches offered to the DM-s are
generally not adopted. Additionally Samuel is working hard with updates
of libc and Hurd as well as new package namings for Mach and Hurd.
> > I think we should revisit their old list of requirements and see how
> > we do, prepare a report on that and ask them what else we should do
> > now.
Where to find that list?
> Well, do you actually intend to do that? Speaking in the hypothetical
> "should" isn't helpful...
> Either way, a (kinda) quick reaction was good IMHO. It doesn't preclude
> a more sophisticated argument later on...
Is anything happening here? The meeting starts on the 21st of March.