Hello Andrei and all,
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:24:59 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense to
> also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and not
> wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian to check wnpp for RFH,
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> An immediate solution would probably be to 'affects ' so
> the bugs at least shows up on the package's bug page. Maybe the BTS
> could/should do this automatically?
Doing affects automatically isn't really something that the BTS itself
should do,[1] but
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:38:03PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> Le 26/10/2012 15:24, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
> > The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense
> > to also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and
> > not wnpp? One has to be quite familiar
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:39:52PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 26 oct 12, 15:38:03, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> >
> > it is currently showed in the PTS: e.g.
> > http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alevt.html:
> > "problems
>
> How many non-DDs/DMs do you think are aware of the PTS? My guess i
On Vi, 26 oct 12, 15:38:03, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
>
> it is currently showed in the PTS: e.g.
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/alevt.html:
> "problems
How many non-DDs/DMs do you think are aware of the PTS? My guess is: not
that many. IMVHO the BTS is much more visible, especially to users who
* Thibaut Paumard [121026 15:54]:
> I don't see a reason to move it away from wnpp: its great to have a
> central place for that information, but I agree it is useful to have
> the info forwarded to other places (such as the PTS, and perhaps the
> package's own bug page).
Having a central page to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 26/10/2012 15:24, Andrei POPESCU a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense
> to also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and
> not wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian
Hi all,
The discussion about ITO made me think: wouldn't it make more sense to
also have RFH, RFA, and O filled against the package itself and not
wnpp? One has to be quite familiar with Debian to check wnpp for RFH,
RFA or O. Maybe having these bugs "in the face" of people interested in
the p
8 matches
Mail list logo