[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:29:11PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Did you receive this email or any of this thread?  It's now more than
> two weeks old, and I'd really like to upload a new PETSc 2.3.0 ASAP.

So upload it? If you've replied to the REJECT message with appropriate
reasons why the REJECTion was wrong, that seems the natural thing
to do? 

Leaving a pointer to the analysis in the changelog entry ("Introduce
unversioned development packages, libpetsc-{dev,dbg} as per
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/...";) would be helpful, but I
don't think even that's necessarily required or expected.

It's usually best just to upload stuff rather than wait for permission --
we've got plenty of procedures in place to stop bad uploads from doing
too much harm; in this case, the queue/new delay. (Not that that's an
excuse to setup a procmail script to reupload everything that gets a
REJECT or anything crazy like that...)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: