Re: usefulness of ITPs (Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: usefulness of ITPs (Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over)
- From: Paul Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 15:25:58 +0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] CAKTje6E9zgLkAoQZmNfHgWWJNmjGAqpYJE+Zc3Nvw4qy8u-jNQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20120325190839.GA13689@localhost.localdomain> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20120325200026.GB6370@gnu.kitenet.net> <20120326065535.GA10629@r500-debian> <email@example.com> <20120330133917.GC15835@dream.aleph1.co.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> But are they always usefull? Does a package that is ready for upload
> already need an ITP? That is the question.
The point of an ITP is that it should be sent before starting the
packaging. If the package is already done then ... well ... yeah ...
you must have forgotten about what the I in ITP means and may as well