UNRELEASED when searching for a sponsor (Was: RFS: eclib -- library and tools for elliptic curves)
Hi Andreas,
teams that use the PET [1] use this flag to distinguish packages that
are still worked on (UNRELEASED) and packages where the maintainer
searches a sponsor (unstable/experimental). The PET uses this to
determine whether to display the package as ready for upload or not [2].
In teams that strictly use this workflow (I think the Perl Team is one
of them) it is not necessary to ask for a sponsor on the list.
The fact that the package was uploaded is then indicated in the vcs by
the debian revision tag which is created by the sponsor.
[1] http://pet.alioth.debian.org/
[2] http://pet.debian.net/pkg-perl/pet.cgi
One can of course do it differently, but this is why I considered
removing UNRELEASED when one is ready a standard practice.
Cheers,
Tobias
On 08/04/2014 01:52 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 11:30:13AM +0200, Tobias Hansen wrote:
>>
>> please set the targeted distribution in the changelog to unstable, then
>> I'll sponsor it. (It's always a good idea to do that before asking for a
>> sponsor.)
>
> Never say always. :-) I personally tend to give the contrary advise to
> leave it at UNRELEASED since as long as the package is not yet sponsered
> it is actually UNRELEASED and a long seek for a sponsor might lead to
> the wrong assumption that the package was uploaded (long) before and
> nobody will care about the package. Since the sponsor is doing the
> actual upload to unstable I personally do this last change while also
> keeping the chance of doing some minor change to the package I feel
> apropriate without doing a "Please change this - please sponsor the
> changes" round. I think this workflow is more efficient.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
Reply to: