Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP
Hi Lucas,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > This is again a case where you claim that you are "changing back from
> > ITP to RFP" despite the bug report _never_ was an RFP. Please fix your
> > script with regards to that case, too.
>
> Fixed.
Yay, thanks!
I suspect the fix is to close these bugs instead of retitling them.
At least I would do it that way. :-)
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > In Debian, we try not to keep ITP bugs open for a too long time, as
> > > it might cause other prospective maintainers to refrain from
> > > packaging the software.
> >
> > I still disagree on this.
>
> It's probably not your case, but I've seen too many ITPs or ITAs be used
> as a protective measure to prevent others from working on a package
Oh, ok. I must admit, I can't even imagine that someone tries to do
that consciously. But maybe my world-view is slightly too optimistic
in such things.
> to disagree with your disagreement.
I understand your disagreement. :-)
I also don't disagree with these mails in general. For example I saw
one for diaspora today and I thought it fits well there -- without
having looked at that bug in detail.
> Does an annual ping
IMHO those mails are more than just a ping if you change the state
of a bug report.
> really hurt that much?
It doesn't _hurt_.
As you may have noticed from the temper in my previous mails, it's
mostly _annoying_ in cases where it is IMHO obvious that changing to
RFP doesn't make sense.
In this case I'm eagerly waiting for the blocking bug to be fixed
(splitting up of an existing package to avoid tons of unneeded
dependencies) to finally be able to upload the ITP'ed package to
Debian. (And I won't give up here. ;-)
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
`- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
Reply to: