Bug#675187: curses-apt-key: changing back from ITP to RFP
Hi Lucas,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > 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".
Oh, ok. Well, I still appreciate that you care. :-)
> 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).
I see. I somehow expected that one of the three "View this report as"
mbox links
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?mbox=yes;bug=675187
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?mbox=yes;bug=675187;mboxstatus=yes
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?mboxmaint=yes;mbox=yes;bug=675187
would contain the "Processed" mails a maintainer gets upon status
change, but I couldn't find any of them in any of these mail boxes.
Without them it's indeed impossible to track the state properly. Even
the "useless messages" on https://bugs.debian.org/675187 itself only
say that something happened but not what. And refer to the mails which
triggered the action, but there's no contents showing the actual
result.
I'm currently thinking about filing a wishlist bug about this against the
pseudo package bugs.debian.org. It should offer either a fourth
mailbox type including or only containing those Processed message or
to include them in the Status mailbox.
Thanks for sharing these issues with me as I now understand way better
why your script occassionally seems to make inappropriate
modifications.
> > 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?
I tend to show a lot of restrain with regards to NMU a wishlist bug
which would make the package to go through NEW.
But yes, I did more than just the bug report:
> 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.
I pinged him later in German (as it's our both's mother tongue and we
both know each other also in real-life) and he's aware of the issue. I
didn't want to Cc a German-written mail to the bug report.
Your mail triggered that I wrote him again (in German, again), not
only about this issue, but also about others in the same package. And
he agreed on an NMU for at least a few of the other open and more
severe issues in the blocking package. But I won't NMU this issue
without explicit consent from him, so it may take one more iteration.
So, yes, your "ping" helped to bring my attention to this bug again.
(But a pure ping would have sufficed, too. :-) And there's a little
bit going again, but not too much yet.
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: