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

Re: Bug#729660: ITP: xemacs21 -- highly customizable text editor

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:39:46AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 03:25:16PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:06:37AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:

> > > Before you put this in NEW, how do you plan on fixing the outstanding RC
> > > bugs?

> > By making changes to the software.

> No need to CC me, I'm subscribed.

Seems to be due to you setting Reply-To.

> This doesn't fill me with confidence that any of the reasons that it was
> removed will be fixed.

> I'd have to look at the RC bugs, but it's not out of the question that
> would get xemacs a REJECT from NEW if they're not handled. At first
> glance, #695799 appears to be one such bug.

That's a bug in a different package which I didn't ITP (or look at) yet,
it's just GFDL docs so the simple fix would obviously be to remove the
offending files.  There's only one RC bug in xemacs21 itself which I've
been able to see (a build fail with texinfo5) which is just a matter of
typing to fix.

> so, again, how will you fix the open bugs before you upload to
> NEW? Which bugs are you planning to fix?

> I'm looking for a hard commitment here, Mark.

My general approach to these things is to fix bugs as I go.  I don't
have any particular plan for how I'm going to fix things I've not even
looked at or looked for yet but given the lack of either development or
massive changes in the underlying platform I would be astonished if
there were anything insurmountable - the thing that was causing issues
before was that Ohura-san wasn't spending time on the package.

It's going to be quicker and simpler to actually fix the problems than
to go through and make an exhaustive list and analyse them, as Lars
suggested please do assume I'm going to make some reasonable effort to
not upload obviously broken stuff.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: