Personally, I don't like to close automatically WNPP bugs (ITP/RFP).
Probably the best move is to retitle ITP to RFP after a certain amount
of time (like 1 year of inactivity, as used by that script) and leave
it there.
RFP should be closed if the upstream project went dead, and left open
if still
On 28/07/09 at 10:05 +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Personally, I don't like to close automatically WNPP bugs (ITP/RFP).
> Probably the best move is to retitle ITP to RFP after a certain amount
> of time (like 1 year of inactivity, as used by that script) and leave
> it there.
The problem here is tha
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org
Hi,
The icon that links to the pool directory for the package is hidden
behind the one that links directly to the .dsc. The problem can be
reproduced using epiphany-gecko (but not iceweasel 3.5 or
epiphany-webkit).
I
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Helping people on #debian, I often need to work out why a package is no
longer available. This tends to be asked in the following situations:
* why isn't package xyz available in lenny (or squeeze or sid)? It used
to exist in etch! (Answer: could b
On 28/07/09 at 14:50 +0100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Package: qa.debian.org
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Helping people on #debian, I often need to work out why a package is no
> longer available. This tends to be asked in the following situations:
>
> * why isn't package xyz available in lenny (or
Hi.
FYI, there are a few bugs whose submitters don't have a valid email
address :
SELECT id, submitter, submitter_email FROM bugs WHERE submitter_email NOT LIKE
'%...@%'
Some come from the parsing done at injection, and others from bad bug
reports, I suppose.
Maybe you'd like to check these ?
Hi.
Thanks Lucas, for the changes in the bugs table.
Now, it's more easy to convert to sioc:User and foaf:Person entities.
You can find an example of what we can achieve with triplify at
https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Helios_wp3/Web/TriplifyUddToRdf
(look at the attachments
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: minor
Hi,
There is some inconsistency in how qa.debian.org handles packages in
alphabetical order. By default when I load qa.d.o, it seems to order
packages in alphabetical order. However, packages of the name: "X"
have a lower alphabetical order than "X-Y". In my
8 matches
Mail list logo
