Hi list, On 25/03/12 21:00, Joey Hess wrote: > The appropriate thing to do when confronted with a months-old ITP > for a package with the same content or name as your package is almost > certianly to ignore old "intent" and get on with it.
In the specific case of mosh, I have posted three RFS messages to debian-mentors since filing the ITP, in addition to the creation of the RFS bug after the sponsorship-requests procedure was announced, so the package was certainly being worked on. However I did not CC the RFS messages to the ITP bug, so they weren't recorded there. Would this be a recommended practice? How should it interact with the new sponsorship-requests process? My first RFS to debian-mentors was posted two days after filing the initial ITP. As a post-script, although I am sad to see this furore, I am selfishly happy to see my package finally get some attention after languishing in -mentors for months and months. ;) Cheers, David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jkrqmu$p45$1...@dough.gmane.org
