Re: Bug#492922: ITP: arpon -- arp handler inspection
Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:33:39AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Then you've submitted the ITP report incorrectly. That field
> > should be the intended 'Description' field of the package.
> Where's that written? I don't mean to be objectionable, but no such
> requirement is listed in the developer's reference:
It's in the instructions for WNPP, and in the form asked by 'reportbug'.
If your request type is ITP (1) or RFP (4) you are asked for a
short description and then for some information about the package:
Please briefly describe this package; this should be an
appropriate short description for the eventual package:
> A DESCRIPTION
> I think it's more important to submit an ITP early to avoid
> duplicate work than to spend more time perfecting the package
It needn't be perfect, but it should be the prospective packager's
intended description of the package.
This is important to allow meaningful discussion about the package
before further work is done on it; the synopsis and description are a
large part of the filter someone will use to decide whether to take a
closer look at the ITP.
\ “I went to the museum where they had all the heads and arms |
`\ from the statues that are in all the other museums.” —Steven |
_o__) Wright |