(Please keep both lists CC'ed to comments) Quoting Eddy Petri?or (eddy.petrisor@gmail.com): > > Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> (05/03/2007): > >> The reviewer sends a message with "[ITT] po-debconf://<package>/en.po" > > > > I would say ITR (Intend to review) instead of ITT (adding tags to the > > various bots is a very easy task). > > Also dropping the final "en.po" seems appropriate. The point was mostly being able to use the bot(s) as is but, of course, if Thomas Huriaux recodes the bot to use another syntax, why not? One point which is not properly covered by my proposal right now is the case of packages with more than on templates file... > > Note also that this action should be coordinated with the debconf > > maintainers. The support of the "Note" template is probably going to be > > dropped, but I don't know when. If it's early in the release cycle (and > > knowing that many of these debconf notes are pointless even in a > > NEWS|README.Debian files), it would be a waste of time to review these > > templates. > > I'd suggest the reviewers to skip reviewing the notes just for this > reason. That seems to be a rather drastic action. Unless we have a complete proof that notes will be dropped (this will debated, definitely), we'd better review them. Of course, it will be up to the reviewer to propose removing a given note, which also explains why the initial interaction with the maintainer makes sense.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature