MOTU Application

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi,

Am Donnerstag 27 September 2007 15:19:08 schrieb Laurent Bigonville:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:30:10 -0400

[earlier on:]
>About the LP integration, the fact that it's easier to do collaborative
>work, since you can attach a branch, review a branch or merge a branch
>easily.

>
> Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:24:42 +0200 Laurent Bigonville
> >
> > <l.bigonville at edpnet.be> wrote:
> > >I think bzr (or other VCS) is only an help to maintaining stuff. Using
> > >(deb)diff is always possible but it's not so easy..
> >
[..]
>
> I was talking about the differences in the reviewing process between
> bzr, debdiff and revu. Of course if you do collaborative maintaining
> you must use a single source.

sorry, but I didn't get your answer about reviewing (for sponsoring 
new/existing packages) really, and that's what my initial question was about. 
So I'd like to ask you again, what part of the process of reviewing packages 
with bzr you think is superiour compared to REVU or using debdiffs. Maybe you 
could give a sample what steps you are performing when reviewing a package 
via bzr highlighting what you think is particularly better for each one, so 
that I can understand your answer better ;).

Nonetheless, I believe I've read enough to come to a decision:
Seeing your answers to the technical questions leaves no doubts about your 
technical skills for me. Your answers regarding the telepathy team make me 
feel that the telepathy team should get better integrated into the MOTU 
landscape. I guess having another MOTU inside the tp. team is a good step 
forward, so +1 for your application from me.

Cheers,
    Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20070927/7dd09ac9/attachment.pgp