[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#790771: why closed ?



Hi Mattia

On 01/07/15 18:21, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 05:54:01PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:

Please, avoid sending email in HTML.


My bad.

On 01/07/15 17:51, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
look at the title ;)
RFS for the 2.4-1 version :)

no worry upload to mentors en I will take care of the sponsoring.

Cheers

Fred

#790771: RFS: clblas/2.4-1 -- OpenCL BLAS library

Sure, because:

*Changed Bug title to 'RFS: clblas/2.4-1 -- OpenCL BLAS library' from 'RFS:
clblas/2.4-2 -- OpenCL BLAS library'*Request was from |Bart Martens
<bartm@quantz.debian.org>|to |control@bugs.debian.org|. (Wed, 01 Jul 2015
16:27:14 GMT) Full text
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=12;bug=790771>and rfc822
format <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=12;bug=790771;mbox=yes>available.

Which still leaves my original question: why ?

Try opening one of the link you posted ↑
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=790771;msg=12

     I see that the package at mentors has version 2.4-1
     so I retitle the RFS to match that version.


So I should have removed the package sitting in mentors first ? I was planning to seek sponsorship via "sponsorship of blends" instead of mentors in the first place.

And indeed 2.4-2 was uploaded only today, after this change.


As per Fred's request indeed.


Btw, of course that's an automated email, by a service run by bartm to help
keeping the RFS queue acceptable.


I sort of guessed that, but got surprised to see my RFS first renamed then closed so short after submission. Now, I think I know what I did wrong here.

Thanks for your explanation.

Ghislain


Reply to: