Re: Proposed New Incoming System
On 10 Feb 2002, James Troup wrote:
> Obviously, it doesn't as non-US doesn't (currently) have a public
> access version of it's incoming.
Well, the question is then when will it?
> *shrug* It still exists. NI doesn't make it any worse - because katie
> (necessarily) processes source uploads first and because the daily run
> size is so big these days, the Maintainers file is already synced far
> too late to affect bug closures. NI also doesn't appreciably worsen
> the problem of people filing bugs on new packages which end up going
> to 'Unknown package' because it doesn't change how often packages are
> actually installed into the archive.
>
> Don't get me wrong, the 'Maintainers - katie vs. the BTS' thing is a
> problem and it should be fixed, but it's orthogonal to NI, I think.
NI?
Maybe there could be a separate pulse sent to a select few, before
dinstall/katie sends mails?
> Perhaps it doesn't, my perl is pidgin at best and either I failed to
> ask someone else or did but got the wrong answer, sorry. I can't
> imagine it's overly hard to fix, tho.
I've thought about sending a patch for it, it just hasn't pissed me off enough
yet.
Reply to: