Re: sponsorship-requests

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:14:41PM +0200, ox16 wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: wishlist > > Dear mentors, maintainer, developer > > I am looking for a sponsor for package "fonts-labiryntowy" * > Package name: fonts-labiryntowy > Version : 1.53-1 > Upstream

Odp: Re: sponsorship-requests

Dnia 29 maja 2018 14:04 Ko Ko Ye` napisał(a): * License : sil > you mean OFL-1.1 ? yes, SIL OFL-1.1

Re: sponsorship-requests

* License : sil > you mean OFL-1.1 ? On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 4:44 PM, ox16 wrote: > > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: wishlist > > Dear mentors, maintainer, developer > > I am looking for a sponsor for package "fonts-labiryntowy" > > * Package name: fonts-labiryntowy

Re: sponsorship-requests mails should not go to debian-mentors

Don Armstrong writes: > Anyone who doesn't want to receive mail from the BTS should be > trivially able to filter it out.[1] […] > 1: If you can't, either your MUA is severely limited, or you haven't > read its documentation, and you aren't interested in learning procmail > or sieve. Or we're n

Re: sponsorship-requests mails should not go to debian-mentors

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > I hate to +1 without much content, but IMHO the "right" thing to do > would be to split off people trying to give or receive help and > automated mail regarding requests for sponsorship. Anyone who doesn't want to receive mail from the BTS should be t

Re: sponsorship-requests mails should not go to debian-mentors

We already tried to discuss the issue in Bug#658498: "sponsorship-requests and debian-mentors mailing list" but I have a feeling our argument hasn't been heard. Regards, Dmitry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co

Re: sponsorship-requests mails should not go to debian-mentors

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote: > It's getting to the point where I think it would be best if we do one > of two things: > >  1. Split out sponsorship-requests bug mail to a new mailing list. > >  2. Stop sending it anywhere, and let people subscribe through the PTS > if they

Re: sponsorship-requests mails should not go to debian-mentors

Samuel Bronson writes: > It's getting to the point where I think it would be best if we do one > of two things: > > 1. Split out sponsorship-requests bug mail to a new mailing list. > > 2. Stop sending it anywhere, and let people subscribe through the PTS > if they care. > > How about you? I'd

Re: sponsorship-requests

Le 17/02/2012 à 10:44, Savvas Radevic écrivit : > Looking at http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS I see we need to "tag" the > new packages with [NEW]. I've seen some bugs with [ITP], so which one > should we use, [NEW] or [ITP]? Hi! The correct tag is [ITP]. I've clarified on the wiki and the upc

Re: sponsorship-requests

Looking at http://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS I see we need to "tag" the new packages with [NEW]. I've seen some bugs with [ITP], so which one should we use, [NEW] or [ITP]?

Re: sponsorship-requests and status

On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 03:28:03AM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > Hello List: Hi, > > I understand that it can take some time to get a package sponsored. > > Nevertheless, when the involved package is orphaned, > it would be a good idea to change its status to reflect the fact > it is indeed orph

Re: sponsorship-requests and orphaned status

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:13:58 +0100 Jerome BENOIT wrote: > > > > You should use the existing wnpp bug report #525921 to state your > > intention to adopt instead of creating a new one. Please add a note > > to #525921 that you are intending to adopt the package, retitle it > > from O: to ITA: as d

Re: sponsorship-requests and orphaned status

Hi ! On 08/02/12 05:04, Dean Evans wrote: On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:40:40 +0100 Jerome BENOIT wrote: Hello List: On 08/02/12 03:42, Michael Gilbert wrote: Nevertheless, when the involved package is orphaned, it would be a good idea to change its status to reflect the fact it is indeed orphaned

Re: sponsorship-requests and orphaned status

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:40:40 +0100 Jerome BENOIT wrote: > Hello List: > > On 08/02/12 03:42, Michael Gilbert wrote: > >> Nevertheless, when the involved package is orphaned, > >> it would be a good idea to change its status to reflect the fact > >> it is indeed orphaned, but also on the way to b

Re: sponsorship-requests and orphaned status

Hello List: On 08/02/12 03:42, Michael Gilbert wrote: Nevertheless, when the involved package is orphaned, it would be a good idea to change its status to reflect the fact it is indeed orphaned, but also on the way to be adopted: a kind of limbo status. Do you mean something like: http://www.d

Re: sponsorship-requests and orphaned status

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:28:52 +0100 Jerome BENOIT wrote: > Hello List: > > I understand that it can take some time to get a package sponsored. > > Nevertheless, when the involved package is orphaned, > it would be a good idea to change its status to reflect the fact > it is indeed orphaned, but

Re: sponsorship-requests and orphaned status

> Nevertheless, when the involved package is orphaned, > it would be a good idea to change its status to reflect the fact > it is indeed orphaned, but also on the way to be adopted: > a kind of limbo status. Do you mean something like: http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/orphaned_byage Anyone can ad

Re: sponsorship-requests and orphaned status

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > I understand that it can take some time to get a package sponsored. To say the least. > Nevertheless, when the involved package is orphaned, > it would be a good idea to change its status to reflect the fact > it is indeed orphaned, but als

Re: sponsorship-requests and debian-mentors mailing list

I think proposal regarding managing sponsorship through bug tracker was to encourage usage of bug tracker. To me forwarding BTS activity for sponsorship-requests to mentors mail list appears to be against the spirit and the desire of the proposal. Indeed we should encourage people to PTS-subscr

Re: sponsorship-requests and debian-mentors mailing list

>>  I.e. 13% of messages are useless for most subscribers. Is it good >>  reason to filter these messages? > > Try your luck: #658498 I haven't seen it. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists

Re: sponsorship-requests and debian-mentors mailing list

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07.02.2012 19:56, Boris Pek wrote: > I.e. 13% of messages are useless for most subscribers. Is it good > reason to filter these messages? Try your luck: #658498 - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID:

Re: sponsorship-requests

* Jakub Wilk , 2012-01-30, 22:44: We could ask listmasters to filter out BTS bot messages. Based on the feedback I received so far, I'm going to do that. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listma

Re: sponsorship-requests

Il giorno mar, 31/01/2012 alle 11.32 -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio ha scritto: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Pietro Battiston > wrote: > > ¹ By the way, I guess creating a filter which catches all - and only - > > debian-mentors emails is not trivial at all with email clients which do > > n

Re: sponsorship-requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 30.01.2012 22:44, Jakub Wilk wrote: > What do others think? It turns out the signal/noise ratio is higher than I expected. Many control messages are not really helpful out of any context. Maybe it is better to sort them out, leaving an easy o

Re: sponsorship-requests

Le Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:44:02PM +0100, Jakub Wilk a écrit : > > We could ask listmasters to filter out BTS bot messages. Now, there > are certainly people (e.g. me) who do want to see control messages. > But they could always subscribe to sponsorship-requests via PTS. > > What do others think?

Re: sponsorship-requests

Il giorno lun, 30/01/2012 alle 23.48 +0100, gregor herrmann ha scritto: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:44:02 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > > We could ask listmasters to filter out BTS bot messages. Now, there > > are certainly people (e.g. me) who do want to see control messages. > > But they could alway

Re: sponsorship-requests

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:44:02 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > We could ask listmasters to filter out BTS bot messages. Now, there > are certainly people (e.g. me) who do want to see control messages. > But they could always subscribe to sponsorship-requests via PTS. > What do others think? I'm happ to

Re: sponsorship-requests

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:35:53 +0100, Savvas Radevic wrote: > 1. If I have an already open bug in wnpp, do I close it or merge it with > the one in s-r (=sponsorship-requests)? No, they are independent. The WNPP bug is about the package itself, and the SR bug is about sponsoring. > 2. If I have a

Re: sponsorship-requests

* Boris Pek , 2012-01-30, 23:01: But this list was quite interesting (at least for me). Sponsored maintainers can learn more not only by own mistakes but also when they are reading other emails here. System messages from the bot are not very useful. Just a noise... I am sorry that this cause

Re: sponsorship-requests

1. If I have an already open bug in wnpp, do I close it or merge it with the one in s-r (=sponsorship-requests)? 2. If I have a package uploaded, which bug should I mention in debian/changelog? wnpp and/or s-r? http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=654892 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/

Re: sponsorship-requests

>>>  Is it active and the preferred way now? So as of now, we should file >>>  a bug with sponsorship-requests instead of sending an email directly >>>  to debian-mentors list? >>  It generates too much noise in this mailing list I think. It will be very >>  uncomfortable to people who did not setu

Re: sponsorship-requests

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Boris Pek wrote: >> Is it active and the preferred way now? So as of now, we should file >> a bug with sponsorship-requests instead of sending an email directly >> to debian-mentors list? > > It generates too much noise in this mailing list I think. It will be very

Re: sponsorship-requests

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:51:47 -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > In practice, how does a request for sponsorship appear at > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=sponsorship-requests;dist=unstable > > ? > I'm CC'ing the list again, because I think this is worthwhile to > everyone (and

Re: sponsorship-requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 30.01.2012 21:10, Slavko wrote: > please, will be change in mandatory way announced here? I will announce the the mentors.debian.net change, but I can't do much to get people adapting the the new workflow. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC:

Re: sponsorship-requests

> Is it active and the preferred way now? So as of now, we should file > a bug with sponsorship-requests instead of sending an email directly > to debian-mentors list? It generates too much noise in this mailing list I think. It will be very uncomfortable to people who did not setup mailing filter

Re: sponsorship-requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hallo, Dňa Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:55:52 +0100 Arno Töll napísal: > Yes. For now, mentors.debian.net isn't updated yet, so consider ourself > being in a transitional period where both approaches are fine. That is > something coming up in a few days thou

Re: sponsorship-requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 30.01.2012 20:51, Savvas Radevic wrote: > Is it active and the preferred way now? So as of now, we should file a bug > with sponsorship-requests instead of sending an email directly to > debian-mentors list? Yes. For now, mentors.debian.net is

Re: sponsorship-requests

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > >>> >>> Is there already any howto ro document about it ? >> >> >> About what? Pseudo-packages or mentors.debian.net? >> > > I know what both are, but it is not clear to me how this pseudo-package is > involved ? > > In practice, how does a r

Re: sponsorship-requests

Is it active and the preferred way now? So as of now, we should file a bug with sponsorship-requests instead of sending an email directly to debian-mentors list?

Re: sponsorship-requests

>>  where can we grab the source of the sponsorship-requests Debian package ? > > sponsorship-requests is a pseudo-package -- it's like a package, but > it's not actually. This is so the BTS can be used for bugs, without > actually having a package in Debian. > > It's for use with http://mentors.de

Re: sponsorship-requests

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote: > Hello List: > > where can we grab the source of the sponsorship-requests Debian package ? sponsorship-requests is a pseudo-package -- it's like a package, but it's not actually. This is so the BTS can be used for bugs, without actually havin