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

Re: Bug#550817: ITP: gitolite -- standalone, souped-up version of gitosis

Greetings Debianists,

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:50:37AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> 	Hi!
> * Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> [2009-10-13 11:03:00 CEST]:
> > What if one has no idea of what "gitosis" is? For such a person, the
> > above description will be close to meaningless. I suggest expanding in a
> > couple of words what gitosis is, turning the reference to it as
> > something like "similar to gitosis".
>  Let me repeat my response that I sent already to the bugreport:
> |  Of course it isn't [the final version of the description]; it's just
> | the short blurb that can be seen on the upstream website about it.
> | Having a full fledged description at ITP stage means that one already
> | started at working on the package - and given that an ITP is meant to
> | be there so that we don't duplicate work and /personally/ the package
> | description is something that I rather *not* think as first of when
> | starting to work on a package sending out the ITP with something
> | final package description is backwards, counter-productive and
> | anachronistic to me. :)

Well, I think that ITP bugs are *more* useful when the person reading
the bug report can tell what the intended-to-be-packaged software
does. Sometimes, when I go through ITP bug reports, I find myself
thinking "Hmmm, that's interesting stuff, I'll have to check that from
time to time" (I also happen to discover software I did not know of
this way). However, I'll never think something like that if I cannot
figure what the software does, and that's a pity.

My two cents !



Filippo Rusconi, PhD - CNRS - public key C78F687C
Author of ``massXpert''     at http://www.massxpert.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: