RFC: bapase changes

2008-03-31 Thread Raphael Geissert
Hi all, After a short talk with Lucas I made some changes to bapase (not yet in the repository) which I'd like to get some feedback before committing them. The first set of changes (bapase_orphaned++.diff) is to score higher orphaned packages not in oldstable nor stable. With this score bump I'

Re: Processed: tagging bugs that are closed by packages in NEW as pending

2008-03-31 Thread Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:12:12PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >># Mon Mar 31 12:04:03 UTC 2008 >># The following bugs are closed by packages in NEW >># http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html >># >># Source package in New: network-manager-pp

Re: Severity of "should this package be orphaned/removed" bugs

2008-03-31 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 31/03/08 at 20:13 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 29/03/08 at 01:59 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > >> Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >> > PROP_RM bugs could be RC severity, but if so I would remove the > mentioning of orphaning in the template so it's clear for everyone that

Re: Severity of "should this package be orphaned/removed" bugs

2008-03-31 Thread Luk Claes
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 29/03/08 at 01:59 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: >> Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> PROP_RM bugs could be RC severity, but if so I would remove the mentioning of orphaning in the template so it's clear for everyone that it should not be used lightly and strong arguments

Re: Severity of "should this package be orphaned/removed" bugs

2008-03-31 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 29/03/08 at 01:59 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > >> PROP_RM bugs could be RC severity, but if so I would remove the > >> mentioning of orphaning in the template so it's clear for everyone that > >> it should not be used lightly and strong arguments are needed for > >> orpha