On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:19:36 +0100 Jon Dowland <lists@alcopop.org> wrote: > Hello, > > Many of the RFS posted to this list include a line like "The > upload would fix these bugs: #X #Y #Z" > > In some cases the bug list is just one bug and that bug is > the ITP. In this case, it seems a little disingenuous to > describe it as fixing a bug to me. I'd prefer to see "The > upload would close the ITP #X" as a distinct stanza. Or > perhaps "The upload would fix these bugs: #X (ITP) #Y #Z". If an upload is an ITP it will rarely have any other bugs. It is ITA uploads that will close both WNPP and package-specific bugs. Perhaps a clearer distinction would be "this package is NEW" vs "this package is being adopted" vs "this is already my package but I am not a DD". The difference between an ITP and an ITA is more important to me than whether the upload closes one or more bugs. Perhaps use only one from a list: "Why do you want a sponsor for this package? 1. This is a NEW package that closes an ITP bug. 2. This is an orphaned package that I wish to adopt with an ITA. 3. This is an existing package but I am not a DD." In the first two, the relevant WNPP bug number must be specified. In the case of an ITA, additional bugs can be specified. In the third case, a list of bugs is optional. In the rare case of an ITP for a package removed from Debian some time ago, the list of bugs that could only be closed by removing the package and an indication of which have actually been fixed in the upload along with clear reasoning on why such a package should be reintroduced at all and how the maintainer proposes to prevent it needing to be removed again. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpXMNPrqZ5vQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature