(Dropping Cc's, everybody reads the list AFAICT.) On 04/02/2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > Not to discredit your very useful work, but I hardly see any reason > why this bug needed to be fixed two days later already. Of all the > choices of the delayed queue, 2 instead of 10 suggests some real > urgency which I cannot find in this bug. I've been in the NMUer situation Lucas described, and indeed, that's very useful to work this way. Anyway, fixing “regular” FTBFSes is IMHO a bit different from fixing “FTBFS in this and that condition” like the bash vs dash one, since it is not really a blocker e.g. for fixing serious bugs in other packages build-depending on a first one, failing to build on some (or all) archs. > Uploading to the DELAYED/10 queue has the exact same effect for you > (no need to come back to it) but allows for much more time, > including a weekend, for the maintainer to address the issue > themselves, and hence sends, in my view, a lot less "pushy" message > to an active maintainer. Agreed. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois
Attachment:
pgpSvKZhkfyOS.pgp
Description: PGP signature