Re: Request for sponser
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 02:24:52PM +0100, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote:
> Le 16/02/2016 04:50, Adam Borowski a écrit :
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:00:24AM +0100, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote:
> >> Could a mentor have a look on this RFS please?
> >> http://bugs.debian.org/722451
> >
> > Why do you rename an ITP to RFS? Please file a separate bug.
>
> Reallly!? But what about history? And how do we deal with 2 bug reports
> then: we close ITP? I'm afraid I don't understand. I really thought the
> bug needed to live its life until end. Could you explain to me how such
> bug reports should live (or tell me wether it's documented or not)?
ITP and RFS server different purposes:
ITP stakes your claim for the package, stating it's you who's working on it
and that others should talk/cooperate with you or risk work duplication or
worse. The history on the ITP is important as it documents who's or was
interested in working on the package. You don't close it until the package
actually enters Debian. Packages should have exactly one ITP.
RFS is for requesting sponsoring a specific upload. You file a new one
whenever you prepared a new version -- including updates to packages already
in Debian. It's for coordinating with a sponsor about fixing problems in
the upload.
--
A tit a day keeps the vet away.
Reply to: