Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over

[David Banks <amoebae@gmail.com>]

Hi list,

On 25/03/12 21:00, Joey Hess wrote:
> The appropriate thing to do when confronted with a months-old ITP
> for a package with the same content or name as your package is almost
> certianly to ignore old "intent" and get on with it.

In the specific case of mosh, I have posted three RFS messages to
debian-mentors since filing the ITP, in addition to the creation of the
RFS bug after the sponsorship-requests procedure was announced, so the
package was certainly being worked on.  However I did not CC the RFS
messages to the ITP bug, so they weren't recorded there.  Would this be
a recommended practice?  How should it interact with the new
sponsorship-requests process?

My first RFS to debian-mentors was posted two days after filing the
initial ITP.

As a post-script, although I am sad to see this furore, I am selfishly
happy to see my package finally get some attention after languishing in
-mentors for months and months.   ;)

Cheers,
David