Re: Bug#280691: Removing efax
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
> There is never anything wrong with fixing some bugs and leaving others
> for later. It is normally a bad idea to delay an upload that fixes
> bug A just because you haven't fixed bug B yet.
Many of the bugs are claimed to be fixed, but the merge
and tests were already delayed by the maintainer change. I
thought I should try to fix these outstanding bugs first,
which is the advice given for adopting an orphaned package
on http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l3 - and these bugs look
fixable, just needing testing. However, I'll drop fixes which I
still doubt, retest and do an upload in the next 24h. I hope
you will update the advice for adopters soon.
Matej used insincere apologies, emailing -quiet@bugs addresses
(while putting my address on emails that never reached here)
and suggesting removal after only 5 days without reply (the
emails from Monday and Saturday which I see on the bug log
is what I meant by "recent"). This is not the "QA boogeyman"
which I read in Matej's email today to the bug log: I'm
amazed if the above behaviour is encouraged by debian-qa.
Finally, I've just realised what Matej means by "the debconf
mass bug filing". A reference would have been helpful. I was
thinking it was some daft decision taken at this summer's
conference, not the announcement about the Depends :-D
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg00136.html
--
MJR/slef
Reply to: