Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 08:22:22PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> The `mosh` you quote reads
> mosh - Mobile shell that supports roaming and intelligent local echo
> This is something totaly different from
> mosh - fast R6RS Scheme interpreter
I propose that the ITP is renamed to mosh-scheme, or something else that
the project finds appropriate. This is an easier solution than renaming
mosh (the mobile shell) now that it's been uploaded. And, it's unclear
that mosh (the scheme interpreter) would ever actually be uploaded
anyway since, despite the ITP, months have passed without the package
appearing or any new reports on its status.
> Additionally I find it highly inappropriate for someone to take a
> package name with an open and active ITP bug  for some totaly unrelated
> package bypassing the wnpp step and uploading to the archive.
Please. I find it highly amusing that anyone would prioritize a
dubiously active bug report over actual action.
There is no policy that says one MUST file an ITP bug in order to make a
package upload. I do apologize that I didn't check before making the
upload and attempt to engage in a conversation with David and anyone who
may have been following the ITP.