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

Re: Advocacy for Chen Baozi

Hi Vincent,

On Jun 23, 2014, at 9:33, Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> wrote:

> Hi Wookey,
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Wookey via nm <wookey@debian.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I advocate Chen Baozi to become Debian Developer, uploading.
>> Advocacy text:
> [...]
>> He has uploaded a pile of packages to debian-mentors for checking/bug filing/NMUing, which I am working through, but would like him to be able to do himself in due course.
> I've noticed that there are a few small but glaring issues with the
> NMUs for which Chen has uploaded to mentors.d.n / filed RFS bugs for
> sponsorship-requests, e.g. wrong version numbers ("+cfg"?) which
> aren't suitable for NMUs, targeting "unreleased" instead of unstable,
> not closing relevant bug reports in d/changelog, etc., which he hasn't
> addressed when others pointed them out on his RFS bug reports (e.g.
> #750419). Hopefully you or his AM will take a bit of time to cover the
> relevant sections in devref to make sure he's aware of those issues.
> :)

Thanks for pointing out the issues.

In fact, those 'RFS bugs’ were filed at the very beginning when I was
fixing FTBFS bugs for arm64. The wrong version numbers (“+cfg”) were added
by following the debian-ports' 'Upload Policy’
(http://www.ports.debian.org/archive). The ‘unreleased’ archive is a 
temporary archive to help debian arm64 ports
(http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/dists/unreleased/). I uploaded those
packages to mentors.debian.net so that Wookey could get them, check
their qualities and finally do the upload (to ‘unreleased’ of debian-ports),
since I don’t have right to do so. I filed the RFS bugs by trying to follow
a more formal way to let Wookey know that the packages were uploaded and
where they locates. However, it turns out that ‘debian ports upload policy’
is slightly different, and I realised that those RFS reports are actually
not suitable for our current porting work (In fact, I also realised that ‘RFS’
should be made when someone cannot find a sponsor and I’ve already got one).

Yes, I think I need to cancel all my ‘RFS’ to avoid further misunderstanding
on them.

Thanks again for kindly reminding.



Reply to: