Re: RFC: Changing the NM system
Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 27 December 2000 19:32, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > I propose to stop the current NM process and to reorganize it.
> >
> > "... let's do the time warp a-gain!".
> >
> > (Ok, so I'm behind on email, but this is giving me cold sweats.)
>
> Don't worry. The current NM process is (almost) on hold.
It is, I have been approved by my AM on 2000-12-02 and have still no account. Do
we have the same thing again as almost 2 years ago (that nobody -at least
outside -private- is notified of anything going wrong with NM) ? Now it is over
one and a half year since I applied (May 1999) ........
[Sorry for ranting, but I don't think that it was (a few months ago) usual that
the account creation took so long. If that is usual, just ignore it and/or flame
away :-) ]
At the moment I can not afford (I don't have too much free time to waste) to
bother people about sponsoring uploads anymore. The next versions of logcheck
(which will offer the possibility for other packages to drop rules files into
*.d directories) and pptpd (new upstream release) as well as the first uploads
of my essentially complete freeswan-packages to unstable will have to wait until
I can upload directly. Until then, anybody is free to upload what I have now (I
will happily mail the packages to anybody who is interested), but I can not deal
with problems during the upload. The "mail the packages to sponsor - sponsor
uploads - dinstall mails some errors - forward to sponsor - fix the bug - mail
the sponsor new packages - try again and hope" procedure just takes too long.
best greets,
Rene
Reply to: