On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 02:32:12PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Raphael Hertzog (hertzog@debian.org) [070728 10:02]: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > > > How to integrate a concept of DM then? > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > First - by starting in the right area - getting it into the NM system by > > > > talking to all those involved. There is FrontDesk, DAM and also the > > > > NM-Committee, the latter should be the right point for a proposal and > > > > discussion. > > > > > > The day when the NM people are eager to integrate DM into NM, they can > > > discuss with the DM committee (it shouldn't be too difficult, they are > > > part of the DM committee). > > > > Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't > > speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things? > > Rewirting from scratch is mostly not a good idea. > > Why are you setting up a buildd network not handled by the buildd admins > and by DSA ? (No need to reply, it's just to show you the parallel) Nice ad-hominem. It's always a pleasure to see how easily you fall in those traps when you don't have proper arguments to use. ftbfs.de is dealing with volatile, experimental buildd's, non official architectures. Thing that I'd have personally liked to see dealt with by debian.org and DSA. Sadly, DSA is AWOL/unresponsive/whatever. Unlike DSA, I think that the recent mails from Myon and Ganneff shows quite unambiguously that: (1) they are alive and kicking ; (2) they don't underestimate or minimize the problem. In those conditions, I've no issues with ftbfs.de/turmzimmer.net/... at _ALL_ because they are forking a dead horse. I have issues with people trying to circumvent alive teams, because if we start doing this, there is no way it's going to end well. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpyP0trE5CGf.pgp
Description: PGP signature