On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 05:30:34PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > There is some problem with gqview maintainer (Ryan Murray), not about > the package but the way to deal with bug reports/users/others > maintainers. > I'm not sure of how to deal with such situation, so I've decided to mail > -devel to take advices. > I'll try to resume the situation: > * 17 Jun 2003: > Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau fill a wishlist against gqview package about the > new 1.3 branch (gtk2). > * 9 Aug 2003 12:45: > Almost 2 months and no response or comment of Ryan on the bug report, > Norbert Tretkowski decide to NMU the package. > * 9 Aug 2003 15:23: > Response from Ryan : he "hate" people who NMU major changes, but always > no comment on the bug report > * Since then no response from Ryan to mails/comment on bug report/... > Norbert has decided to upload gqview1.3 package in the archive. > I've tested both packages: gqview 1.3 has all 1.2 features, and add an > exif support. Many people use it for months without problems. I think > gqview 1.3 is ready for unstable ... Why would you NMU for a single wishlist bug? The above timeline doesn't point to any reason why it would be *necessary* to get the new version of gqview into the archive. Which of the bugs currently listed in the BTS are fixed by the new version of gqview? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpYldk3QpV_k.pgp
Description: PGP signature