On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:06:37AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > I was on my phone, thanks for the advice.
I laboriously quote-post from my phone all the time. Emails should be optimised for the reader, rather than the writer. > No, I don't think it's wise to let this back in the archive before you > know how you're going to deal with *why* it was removed. God knows we > the ftpteam doesn't need more work (processing this from NEW to only rm > it a few short weeks later). There were four stated reasons for its removal, and RC-buggy was just one. Unmaintained was another, and lack of maintenance is one sure fire way to make sure that RC bugs aren't fixed. One that Mark is proposing to address by maintaining the package. > Before you put this in NEW, how do you plan on fixing the outstanding RC > bugs? Technically, there are no outstanding RC bugs, all bugs were closed when it was removed. Practically, of course there are likely to be issues that were opened against the old package which will apply to the new one. But how did you get to the figure 6 (elsewhere?) Is that Moritz's count from #725883? How do you know which of those 6 are problems in the source, rather than problems in the packaging (which may not be inherited by Mark's packaging efforts?) Furthermore, is it not usual practice for ftp master to comment on actual packages, rather than theoretical ones? an ITP is "intent to package". There's no package to critique yet! -- 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/20131115170531.ga13...@bryant.redmars.org
