Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
The scripts should be fixed to cope with "src:foo" as package assignment.
dondelelcaro: wishlist, could the BTS refuse package names with ":" in
it ?
example: 504907
it ends up creation problems further down in automated scripts that rely on
the fact t
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> I know that it is similar to the RFH/RFA that we have in WNPP but that
> system is IMO not working because:
> - too few maintainers are using it, thus looking for packages to help
> there is not really interesting (not enough "choice") and thus the
> system is not ve
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> it is also with ideas like this that i regret that our policy process
> won't allow for a top-down flow of recommendations. imho this would be a
> nice use for it, once consensus was be reached that this is a good idea.
The good thing is that lintian p
* Loïc Minier [Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:31:16 +0100]:
> Just like we have descriptions for patches, we could require a
> description for shlibs.local, perhaps with a #xx bug in the text
upon reading cyril's mail, i (also) thought it'd be nice if we could
require a bug number in every shlibs.loca
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Your main goal is to improve our detection of packages that need
> attention. (it would also help detect inactive maintainers, but even
> that has the goal of improving the quality of our packages).
Not only. One of the aspects that I like most in this
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Mark Brown wrote:
> things. My concern with sending out the e-mails to all and sundry is
> that it's taking things too far in the initial stages of the process and
> that adding that further down the line when the system is established
> would be a better approach.
Ok. Looks
On 20/12/08 at 18:19 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose something new that would partially supersede the
> work done by the MIA team and that would also generate new information
> somehow related to the topic of WNPP.
>
> The basic idea is quite simple, we want to
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 09:25:32AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'm not sure that the e-mail bit of this really adds anything - the
> I don't understand why you say that:
> - email is the primary way to get in touch with a maintainer
> - making sure t
Hello,
> The basic idea is quite simple, we want to ensure that each package
is
> maintained as well as possible and for this we need to ensure that
> it has one or more active maintainer(s).
> What do you think of the idea ?
I think this is a great idea and should be implemented.
Jeremiah
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Do you just want to parse the list of Maintainer / Uploaders
> and leave out generic group addresses?
Yes, only real people are important and able to work. :)
> You are talking about a "passive" maintainer in the case of the Perl
> maintainers group.
N
Hi Raphaël,
I like your proposal in principle, but I see some problem with
group maintenance. While I'm in principle a supporter of group
maintenance I do not see how it should work with your proposal.
Who in the group will be addressed by your proposal? You are
talking about a "passive" mainta
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:19:26PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > The collation of all those data will give us a better view on the
> > maintenance status of each package and it could be displayed on the PTS.
> > We could also use those info to direct
12 matches
Mail list logo
