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

Re: (semi-)automatic unclaim of packages with more than 2 weeks of inactivity

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 04:41:11PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:48:20AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > To be fair, Abhijith did just today send a request for assistance with
> > the FBTFS problem on tomcat8.  
> I'd seen this, just that me unclaiming packages is not ment to be fair
> or unfair, but rather just a means to get probably stuck packages
> unclained. and our workflows require dla-needed.txt to be kept up2date.
I can see two errors on my part here:

- I used "to be fair" as a fluff/filler, not in any way intending to
  imply that the process or your associated was unfair; a better lead in
  would have been "coincidentally"
- I failed to note that Abhijith's message and your message went to the
  same list (my email filter rules sorted the two messages into
  different folders; it seemed to me likely that someone who might
  decide to pick up tomcat8 after seeing your message might not have
  seen Abhijith's earlier message, though that was clearly not the case)

> > Perhaps the note in dla-needed.txt was
> > not updated to reflect this.
> exactly. Or, in other words, asking for help about a package is great,
> but/just if one has claimed that package and is stuck, one shall also
> update dla-needed.txt.
> all in all not a big deal, noone was harmed and Abhijith has certainly
> not done anything bad, just suboptimal. happens.
After reading your response I don't even think it was suboptimal.  The
process worked as intended and it was my failure to make the correct
connection between the two messages that resulted in me imagining a
"problem" that did not exist.



Roberto C. Sánchez

Reply to: