On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 07:07:21PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > This is what Paul did: When writing just a single sentence it might be > reasonable to derive from a role which is good in general but not > helpful in specific cases. Please try to make reasonable > top-posting-bashings if necessary, not in every case to people who are > known to behave correctly. Generally people who do do the right thing but have some reason not to will mention their reason when they > > Technically, there are no outstanding RC bugs, all bugs were closed when > > it was removed. > Nice trick to wait for removal of a package to let a bucket of bugs > vanish and start from scratch. This is wasting the time of previous bug > reporters. There was a lot of time to fix those long standing bugs if > there would have been any interest in the package and I perfectly share > Paul's point. Had I been aware that there was a problem with the package prior to it being removed I'd probably have done something about it, ideally prior to the wheezy release or at least prior to removal from sid. This would have enabled me to skip this thread, delightful though it is. As it was it was sitting running quite happily and rc-alert doesn't seem to work for me so I had no idea there was a problem. > > 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! > Ftpmaster had just work to do on the removal (probably not much work) > and if I would be ftpmaster and see an ITP of a just removed package I > would be seriously wondering if people want to play some not so funny > game with me. Our processes for advertising the pending removal of packages aren't that great, sadly - this isn't the first time I've noticed something had a problem only because it vansihed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature