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

Re: Bug#1123678: marked as done (RFS: python-blake256/0.1.1-1 [ITP] -- Python module supporting blake256 hashing)



On Tuesday, December 23, 2025 1:27:59 AM Mountain Standard Time Bastian 
Germann wrote:
> Hi Soren,
> 
> 
> I have not noticed that the Python Team list was in Cc. The RFS in that list
> is still valid, closing it on sponsorship-requests does not change it. I 
have
> already had more messages with Manuel about it.

Here are the messages sent to the Debian Python mailing list.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2025/12/msg00077.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2025/12/msg00078.html

It appears that you didn’t realize they had been sent to the Debian Python 
mailing list, because you responded to the Debian Mentors mailing list.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2025/12/msg00224.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2025/12/msg00223.html

Please be more careful about curtly responding to RFS in the future.  Even 
though the Debian Python team policy says that members “can” submit RFS to the 
Debian Python mailing list, nothing says they “should” or “must”.  They can 
submit them to Mentors if they like, and they can use the Mentors RFS template 
on the Debian Python mailing list if it is helpful to them.  Responding curtly 
to an RFS (even if it is in error, which wasn’t the case here) can be off-
putting to new contributors.

All that being said, I think it is best for Python packages to be reviewed by 
a member of the Debian Python team, because there are many Python specific 
aspects of packaging.  And, personally, with experienced contributors, I like 
to just work with them directly from their Salsa repository, so I don’t find 
uploading to Mentors particularly helpful for users after their first few 
packages.  However, I wouldn’t discourage anyone from doing so if it is 
helpful to them.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: