On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:08:16 +0100 Justin B Rye <justin.byam.rye@gmail.com> wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: > > I did ask for a template review whilst the package was still in NEW: > > > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2014/06/msg00009.html > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2014/06/msg00010.html > > > > However, I wasn't CC'd on the only reply, despite that reply asking > > specific questions about the package. > > Sorry - but the general mailing list Code of Conduct does say not to > CC the original poster unless specifically requested. Except that I > often do that anyway; you were just unlucky that I didn't notice it > might be needed. It's OK. We've got the bug report now, so that's better for tracking from my side. Do the new package descriptions assist in understanding what the packages are doing? LAVA is a complex product and we still need to add a lot more documentation to the existing lava-server-doc. Nevertheless, LAVA does have a high entry barrier, it requires a significant amount of sysadmin and test writer time to setup and maintain. So there is an expectation that the people looking at installing LAVA will have an amount of familiarity with continuous integration and validation testing. LAVA is also developing quickly, so the "experimental" remote worker setup is both in regular use and due for an overhaul which will completely change how the packages are configured. This method will not be ready before the Jessie release but I'm already prepared to make frequent backports to Jessie once those become available as well as updates in a separate repository. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature