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

Re: Time of a package to be processed by FTP-masters

On Thursday 16 December 2010 18:28:33 Luke Faraone wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 11:08 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> > On Wednesday 27 October 2010 16:24:38 Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> >>> 2.1- If so, what's would be the time appropriate to ask? 1 month for
> >> 
> >> 1 Month sounds reasonable to me under normal circumstances.
> > 
> > Two months have gone by, and no feedback.
> We're in a freeze. Poking the FTPmasters will not be useful, unless
> there's a reason your package should get reviewed before everything else
> in the queue. As has been said before, the developer will be notified if
> there's a problem with his package.

I won't poke them to review my package, as if it was the most important 
thing in the universe, before anything else.  I just wanted to ask about its 
status and possible review because my package is already towards the front 
of the queue since a few weeks ago, and new packages behind mine are being 
approved constantly, and mine isn't.

Why is this important?  In this lapse of time of 2 months, my package (1.7.1 
version) was already obsoleted (by 1.7.2, with a lot of bug fixes).  So I 
was wondering if it's worth to invest time in creating a package for 1.7.2, 
or if the effort might be futile because the package won't be reviewed and 
approved under any circumstance until freeze is over.  By that time 1.7.3 
might be out, and my effort wasted again, so I would choose not to create 
the 1.7.2 package at this moment.

I think that these are pretty reasonable things that a contributor can ask, 
to decide what to do with his free time, but maybe I am wrong.  In any case, 
having unresolved doubts about this, the voluntary effort that I could put 
forward in the next few weeks will be spent elsewhere, where the effort will 
hopefully be more appreciated and won't be wasted for sure.

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Reply to: