Re: freeze policy - open requests for sponsorship
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Le 16/07/12 11:05, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
> Le 03/07/12 08:20, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
>> Le 03/07/12 01:41, Adam Borowski a écrit : Hi,
>
>> We could agree on a usertag then, for instance:
>
>> User: sponsorship-requests@packages.debian.org Usertags:
>> not-for-wheezy
>
>> Using sponsorship-requests@packages.debian.org as the User, we
>> should be able to rearrange the default view of
>> bugs.debian.org/sponsorship-requests to have the "for-wheezy"
>> bugs on top (subclassified by severity) followed by the
>> not-for-wheezy bugs.
>
>> cf. http://wiki.debian.org/bugs.debian.org/usertags
>
> Hi,
>
> (For the record, IANADD... yet)
>
> I was about to triage some bugs with these two usertags
> (for-wheezy and not-for-wheezy), but I realized it is impossible to
> do without the assent from the submitter. Actually, I have read the
> first 10 RFSes or so, and if I could, I would not upload any of
> them because they are not fit for wheezy and they don't state
> whether they are aiming for wheezy.
Hi again,
I propose two _additional_ tags that could be set independently from
the maintainer: fit-for-wheezy and not-fit-for wheezy. Those two would
be used to show that the package has been reviewed and is/is not fit
for wheezy. For instance if I review a package and it does too much
modifications, I tag it "not-fit-for-wheezy". The maintainer has then
two basic options:
- revert the useless changes, remove the "not-fit-for-wheezy" tag
and add the "for-wheezy" tag;
- tag the package "not-for-wheezy" and/or set distribution to
experimental.
Unless there are objections, I will start setting the
(not-)fit-for-wheezy usertags tomorrow.
Reminder: this is to help our sponsors, I can't sponsor myself. If you
don't like the idea, please say so.
Kind regards, Thibaut.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=x6tG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: