[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Inconsistent spelling of QT and GNOME

On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:39:25PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> On 04/11/01, Matthew Vernon wrote:

> > Indeed. Historically, debian-qa have been the people who deal with
> > orphaned packages - there are moves to make the BTS-generated traffic

> Well, but not only time is changing and I think it's time that debian-qa
> changes a bit moving away from the maintaince of orphaned packages to
> take care of QA issues.

It seems that part of the problem with this has been that most of what
would be done by -qa has actually happened on -devel or the ports lists
- there is not that much that is specifically the buisness of -qa.

> > Fair enough; there seems to be general agreement that filing wishlist
> > bug reports would be a sensible initial approach (though there seems
> > to be some disagreement as to who should do it, and whether -devel

> Well, I wouldn't say that there's a agreement about this especially
> since this wouldn't ensure that really all packages get fixed and either
> all packages should be fixed or none.

It strikes me that if you want to get general agreement on stuff then
-devel (or in this case the -kde and -gtk-gnome lists) is the place to
go.  -qa doesn't seem particularly relevant in that quality isn't an
oddment that ought to get hidden away from general view.

"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

Attachment: pgp1PjcqAMnih.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: