Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There is never anything wrong with fixing some bugs and leaving others > for later. It is normally a bad idea to delay an upload that fixes > bug A just because you haven't fixed bug B yet.
Many of the bugs are claimed to be fixed, but the merge and tests were already delayed by the maintainer change. I thought I should try to fix these outstanding bugs first, which is the advice given for adopting an orphaned package on http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l3 - and these bugs look fixable, just needing testing. However, I'll drop fixes which I still doubt, retest and do an upload in the next 24h. I hope you will update the advice for adopters soon. Matej used insincere apologies, emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses (while putting my address on emails that never reached here) and suggesting removal after only 5 days without reply (the emails from Monday and Saturday which I see on the bug log is what I meant by "recent"). This is not the "QA boogeyman" which I read in Matej's email today to the bug log: I'm amazed if the above behaviour is encouraged by debian-qa. Finally, I've just realised what Matej means by "the debconf mass bug filing". A reference would have been helpful. I was thinking it was some daft decision taken at this summer's conference, not the announcement about the Depends :-D http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg00136.html -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
