Re: Bug#197049: ITP: conglomerate -- an XML editor for GNOME
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 07:15:23PM -0400, Matthew P. McGuire wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:08:51PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:14:54PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 08:59:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyway, conglomerate is still not ready for inclusion in unstable, it
> > > > is buggy and dies frequently, i was thinking about doing an
> > > > experimental upload only, but i suppose i cannot close the ITP/RFP
> > > > bugs in this case, right ?
> > >
> > > Why not? A package would be available, which is what the submitter
> > > requested.
> > But in experimental only, and given that experimental has almost no
> > visibility, and is difficult and discouraged to use, i would let the
> > RFP/ITP bug open, be it only to inform people a package is available in
> > experimental, so a new RFP/ITP doesn't get filled.
> > I have no experience in uploading new packages to experimental, and
> > don't know what the usual practice is in such cases. I guess there were
> > few enough such cases that no clear practice exists anyway.
> If experimental or unstable would not be suitable, how about using an
No, experimental is ok, and i uploaded there. Unstable is the one which
is unaceptable in the current situation of this package.
> unofficial apt repository for it? This would get the package started
> along side the earlier developement of the application and might
> possibly make it easier to manage in the long run. Once the app and
> package reach a more stable point, place that version in experimental or
> unstable. Does that seem reasonable or am I missing something?
Well, i think that experimental is precisely for this kind of packages,
which are to broken to go into unstable.
Now, my question was, should i or not close the ITP/RFP bugs when
uploading to experimental.
Thanks for your response anyway.