On 2022-03-18 16:45:25, Bo YU wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:44 PM Sandro Tosi <mo...@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> > Sorry again. I recheck the #1007025 [0], it should be RFP tag.
>> > This is my misspelt in the first request email.
>> > So I think I can go to to work it :-)
>>
>> OMG you're right! i guess morning coffee hadnt kicked in when first
>> replying. I would still contact anarcat before starting any work,
>> because they may already have started the packaging effort and you two
>> can collaborate. It's also possible nothing was done and so you can
>> start from scratch.
>>
> I am a newbie for Debian develop and noticed the RFP [0]. So, hi Antoine,
> Have you started to work on this? If not, I think I can finish it with
> DPT's help:-).
Hi!
I'm happy to see anyone pick up this work. I don't have the context for
that thread, but I did (deliberately) file the bug as an RFP (Request
For Package). If I would be working on it, I would have changed its
status to ITP (Intent To Package). So while it's nice to hear from you,
you don't actually need my approval to go ahead and package this. :)
(I file a lot of RFPs, mostly to keep track of packages missing from
Debian. But sometimes I do start working on them and I *do* make sure to
change the bug status accordingly.)
> If yes, please let us know(As I said, I am a newbie and do not know what
> this is polite
> to ask the reporter directly. No offense).
No offense taken whatsoever. Also: I didn't receive that email at all, I
had to be told by a friend about your response (and I don't know how
they found it!) because you didn't CC me...
By default, the BTS doesn't include the original submitter when you only
write to the bug report...
a.
--
>From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of
Big Brother, from the age of doublethink - greetings!
- Winston Smith, 1984
