Re: Re: Fixes that would close ITP bugs 671296 and 1006705

2022-03-30 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:41:08PM +, Eivind Naess wrote: > Hi Andrey, > > I don't mind becoming a debian maintainer at all. In fact, I've maintained > these packages for Ubuntu over almost a decade. It would indeed be simpler > for me to maintain these for Debian and it to be adopted by dow

Re: Fixes that would close ITP bugs 671296 and 1006705

2022-03-29 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:01:07PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 05:34:57PM +, Eivind Naess wrote: > > I have a packages made ready which would close both 1006705 and 671296 > > - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671296 > > - https://bugs.debian.org

Re: Fixes that would close ITP bugs 671296 and 1006705

2022-03-29 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 05:34:57PM +, Eivind Naess wrote: > I have a packages made ready which would close both 1006705 and 671296 > - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671296 > - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1006705 > > The GIT repository is here: > - git

Re: Why bother with ITP bugs?

2022-01-17 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:23:51PM -0800, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > I guess ITP bugs are common practice for new packages... but are they > *required* by anything? No. But your sponsor is likely to request you to file one before sponsoring. > It seems like fairly high-friction, low-v

Why bother with ITP bugs?

2022-01-17 Thread Ross Vandegrift
Hello, I guess ITP bugs are common practice for new packages... but are they *required* by anything? It seems like fairly high-friction, low-value work - especially if you're talking about more than a single package. So I'd like to avoid it, but I'm not sure what the costs wo

Processed: Include short description in RFS titles and add blocked ITP bugs

2012-03-03 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 662026 RFS: shotdetect/1.0.86-1 [ITP] -- scene change detector Bug #662026 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: shotdetect/1.0.86-1 [ITP] Changed Bug title to 'RFS: shotdetect/1.0.86-1 [ITP] -- scene change detector' from 'RFS: shotdetect/1.0.86-1

Processed: Mark RFS bugs as blocking ITP bugs

2012-02-20 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 659498 RFS: solarpowerlog [ITP] -- photovoltaic data logging Bug #659498 [sponsorship-requests] RFS: solarpowerlog -- photovoltaic data logging Changed Bug title to 'RFS: solarpowerlog [ITP] -- photovoltaic data logging' from 'RFS: solar

Re: ITP bugs

2007-10-03 Thread Jon Dowland
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 20:41 +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote: > Among my 5 packages waiting at mentors.d.n, only the two more recents > close ITP bugs. Would it be better practice if I issue a new Debian > revisions for the 3 others after opening an ITP bug, with a changelog > closing the

Re: ITP bugs

2007-10-03 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:15:42 +0200 Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scribit Neil Williams dies 02/10/2007 hora 09:57: > > > ITP bugs are not required. > > ITP bugs are required by most sponsors. As DD's, you and I are free to > > skip ITP bugs but mai

Re: ITP bugs

2007-10-02 Thread Pierre THIERRY
Scribit Neil Williams dies 02/10/2007 hora 09:57: > > ITP bugs are not required. > ITP bugs are required by most sponsors. As DD's, you and I are free to > skip ITP bugs but maintainers needing sponsorship should file an ITP. Indeed there's very valuable information layed

Re: ITP bugs

2007-10-02 Thread Mohammed Sameer
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:57:51AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:47:16 +0200 > Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Pierre THIERRY schrieb: > > > > > Among my 5 packages waiting at mentors.d.n, only the two more recents >

Re: ITP bugs

2007-10-02 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:47:16 +0200 Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pierre THIERRY schrieb: > > > Among my 5 packages waiting at mentors.d.n, only the two more recents > > close ITP bugs. Would it be better practice if I issue a new Debian > > revisions

Re: ITP bugs

2007-10-02 Thread Simon Richter
Hi, Pierre THIERRY schrieb: Among my 5 packages waiting at mentors.d.n, only the two more recents close ITP bugs. Would it be better practice if I issue a new Debian revisions for the 3 others after opening an ITP bug, with a changelog closing the latter? ITP bugs are not required. It is

Re: ITP bugs

2007-10-01 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Pierre THIERRY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (01/10/2007): > Would it be better practice if I issue a new Debian revisions for the > 3 others after opening an ITP bug, with a changelog closing the > latter? Yes, although you don't need a new revision, just put the Closes: in the current revision (I think m.

ITP bugs

2007-10-01 Thread Pierre THIERRY
Among my 5 packages waiting at mentors.d.n, only the two more recents close ITP bugs. Would it be better practice if I issue a new Debian revisions for the 3 others after opening an ITP bug, with a changelog closing the latter? Curiously, Pierre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A