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 ! Cheers, Filippo -- Filippo Rusconi, PhD - CNRS - public key C78F687C Author of ``massXpert'' at http://www.massxpert.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature