Dear Adrian, I'm glad I sent my previous message... On 11-04-2020 21:52, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 07:46:22PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >> I assume good faith because of this. :) >> , but there >> are so many bugs updated this way that it doesn't look like coincidence. > > this is not coincidence, the first thing I am doing when I spend time > on QA is always to check [1] which is for me a list of bugs ordered > by priority. Ack. I understand. >> We do allow autoremoval to be delayed by updates to the bug, but that is >> to give extra time if progress is being made but the bug isn't solved >> yet. If there isn't any progress, we ask you to not delay the >> autoremoval with these updates. Either do the updates much earlier, or >> hold off until the autoremoval happened. > > Why is it a problem for you when a package stays 2 weeks longer > in testing, 1 year before the next freeze? It's not a problem. It's just I was watching that list closely as it's a rather new thing, and I was surprised to see all packages bump their autoremoval date. It looked so systematic that it seemed like you were doing it on purpose. > You can add a removal hint at any time if a removal is urgent for you. Sure, but if a package has reverse dependencies, autoremovals take care of that, while I need to figure it out. > BTW: Please close the bugs when submitting them instead of just adding a > fixed version, otherwise the BTS will show them as open forever and > never archive them. How do I do that? "close -1"? Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature