Re: Bug#729660: ITP: xemacs21 -- highly customizable text editor
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:06:37AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> I was on my phone, thanks for the advice.
I laboriously quote-post from my phone all the time. Emails should be
optimised for the reader, rather than the writer.
> No, I don't think it's wise to let this back in the archive before you
> know how you're going to deal with *why* it was removed. God knows we
> the ftpteam doesn't need more work (processing this from NEW to only rm
> it a few short weeks later).
There were four stated reasons for its removal, and RC-buggy was just
one. Unmaintained was another, and lack of maintenance is one sure fire
way to make sure that RC bugs aren't fixed. One that Mark is proposing
to address by maintaining the package.
> Before you put this in NEW, how do you plan on fixing the outstanding RC
> bugs?
Technically, there are no outstanding RC bugs, all bugs were closed when
it was removed.
Practically, of course there are likely to be issues that were opened
against the old package which will apply to the new one. But how did you
get to the figure 6 (elsewhere?) Is that Moritz's count from #725883?
How do you know which of those 6 are problems in the source, rather than
problems in the packaging (which may not be inherited by Mark's
packaging efforts?)
Furthermore, is it not usual practice for ftp master to comment on
actual packages, rather than theoretical ones? an ITP is "intent to
package". There's no package to critique yet!
Reply to: