Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP

[Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org>]

On 28/07/14 at 17:30 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> 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.  :-)

No, I fixed the wording to avoid implying that I was "changing back".
Yeah, weak, I know :(
But querying the past state of a bug in the BTS is not possible (one
could try to parse the mails to figure this out, but eeeek).

> 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. ;-)

Have you tried insisting a bit, or suggesting a very-DELAYED NMU?
As your last message is from May 2012, it might not be clear to the
maintainer that you are still waiting for that bug to be fixed, and that
this is actually a blocker for you.

Lucas