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

Re: Inconsistent spelling of QT and GNOME

On 04/11/01, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

Then do as I suggested in an other email and remove this list after
debian-qa-packages has been created. According to your description this
list will then be useless and have no further relevant traffic, so that
everything can be moved to -devel.

> > > 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

Because first this is an issue about the quality of our distribution and
therefor the people on the debian-qa list should discuss it and work out
a solution that will ensure that all packages will get fixed. Then you
can present this suggestion on -devel or other lists and create a
timetable, announce it maybe to -devel-anounce or mail the involved
developers. But this isn't an issue that can directly be handled on
-devel, since it's not a technical problem.

           Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16  63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853

Attachment: pgpgfJhPjoJzE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: