Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:46:57AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > My two cents... If the bug stayed with wnpp (as opposed to being > reassigned to ftp.debian.org) Keep in mind, these are not the only alternatives. I've modified my proposal in response to a good point that Marcelo Magallon mad

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 06:38:46PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit > > > > Well, the bug could be reassigned to "wnpp,ftp.debian.org". That should > > work with the current BTS without changing anything. > > I think it should be kept to wn

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit > My two cents... If the bug stayed with wnpp (as opposed to being > reassigned to ftp.debian.org) I'd prefer a new title (e.g. ITP-uploaded). > Archive maintainer who reject an upload could then retitle it to > ITP-rejected and document wh

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

Sam Powers wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit > > > > > closed automatically, but this way it is clear that the matter is out of > > > the (prospective) package maintainer's hands, or those of the W

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit > > > closed automatically, but this way it is clear that the matter is out of > > the (prospective) package maintainer's hands, or those of the WNPP > > group, and in that of

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit > Well, the bug could be reassigned to "wnpp,ftp.debian.org". That should > work with the current BTS without changing anything. I think it should be kept to wnpp. At least, so that we have a distinction between ITP that has been withdr

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:03:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > "Well, clearly after making the package from scratch, the next step is to > get it into the archive, and responsibility for that is with ftpmaster, > so let's reassign the bug to ftp.debian.org" ...typically requires human interventi

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 01:39:38PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 25-Sep-01, 22:59 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote: > > and filing, what, a dozen new bugs against ftp.debian.org every week is > > something other than harassment [0]? > How is it harrasment? How is it not? "Well, clearly after ma

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 08:42:18PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > I can understand your argument for reassigning the bugs and in > principle I agree with it. My only objection is that people would have > to check http://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org instaed of > http://bugs.debian.org/wn

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As with account creation for New Maintainers, inclusion of an > uploaded package with an ITP bug against it is the "final stage" in > the realization of the new package. We don't have fully fledged new > developers until their accounts are cre

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On 25-Sep-01, 22:59 (CDT), Anthony Towns wrote: > and filing, what, a dozen new bugs against ftp.debian.org every week is > something other than harassment [0]? How is it harrasment? It's a todo list. And won't the bug be closed automatically when the package is installed? So it's hardly any ex

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > Rather than making it to be reassigned to something else, > > it might be better to retitle it to make it look > > > > "ITP-uploaded: package - description" > > > > and still assigned to wnpp. > > >

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Rather than making it to be reassigned to something else, > it might be better to retitle it to make it look > > "ITP-uploaded: package - description" > > or > > "Uploaded: package - description" > > and still assigned to wnpp.

Re: MUAs and Locking Was: Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:33:04AM -0500, Scott Dier wrote: > * Anthony Towns [010925 22:59]: > > Why, btw, are you uploading a NEW package with the maintainer set to -qa, > > especially when -qa has already asked for the package to be removed from > > It's absouletly horrid code to look at and h

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The bug was quickly closed by one of the FTP admins: Be happy, you got a reply... -- Marcelo | - "There have been...accidents." - "What kind of [EMAIL PROTECTED] | accidents?" - "The kind of accidents you prefer to

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit > When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to > suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org. The package changelog > can and should still use "Closes: #", so that the bug is > closed automatically, but this way i

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

* Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010925 22:43]: > > Thats not really fair now is it! Branden is trying to make the > > procedure better if his suggestions are wrong how about making > > constructive criticism. > Tell that to James Troup. Perhaps next time let him make the comment instead. --

MUAs and Locking Was: Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

* Anthony Towns [010925 22:59]: > Why, btw, are you uploading a NEW package with the maintainer set to -qa, > especially when -qa has already asked for the package to be removed from It's absouletly horrid code to look at and has a locking scheme I wish not to overhaul to get into the fnctl, then

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 01:59:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 10:35:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > You are not going to harass us into special casing you. > > I wouldn't dream of it, hence the proposal in this thread. > > Uh, and you figure making people mail

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 10:35:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > You are not going to harass us into special casing you. > I wouldn't dream of it, hence the proposal in this thread. Uh, and you figure making people mail the BTS specially for each new package uploaded (instead of adding a Clos

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:54:15PM +1000, Jason Thomas wrote: > > Branden, stop making hysterical comments. > > Thats not really fair now is it! Branden is trying to make the > procedure better if his suggestions are wrong how about making > constructive criticism. Tell that to James Troup.

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:22:19AM +0100, James Troup wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > tags 113360 wontfix > > > severity 113360 wishlist > > > thanks > > Which means since you won't leave the bug closed, I'll mark it wontfix > instead. That doesn't alter my st

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > tags 113360 wontfix > > severity 113360 wishlist > > thanks Which means since you won't leave the bug closed, I'll mark it wontfix instead. That doesn't alter my statement in the close mail and repeated here on -devel. Since you don't seem

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:57:50AM +0100, James Troup wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Apparently the package is never to be accepted into Debian, > > Err, no, I never said that. Exhibit 1:

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 07:05:13PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:15:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to > > suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org. > > Branden, stop making hysterical comme

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:15:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to > suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org. Branden, stop making hysterical comments.

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Apparently the package is never to be accepted into Debian, Err, no, I never said that. I said it would be processed normally and that you would not harass us into special casing you. -- James