On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 08:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages.
Great work... Just wish I wasn't on there.
Is there any better way of keeping snapshot packages out of testing
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:31:16AM +0100, Mark Howard arranged a set of bits
into the following:
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 08:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages.
Great
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, LapTop006 wrote:
Is there any better way of keeping snapshot packages out of testing than
RC bugs?
Picking a random architecture and making its builds fail is not a valid
answer :)
I had been thinking that, something like a control feild Dists:
unstable (Probably a
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:31:16AM +0100, Mark Howard wrote:
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 08:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages.
Great work... Just wish I wasn't on there.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If you don't understand why you are on this list, use the maintainer
address query on http://bugs.debian.org/ and look for old RC bugs. If
you still don't understand, mail me and I'll tell you.
You just should add the maintainer address to this list.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:21:48AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If you don't understand why you are on this list, use the maintainer
address query on http://bugs.debian.org/ and look for old RC bugs. If
you still don't understand, mail me and
On Monday 14 April 2003 09:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages. Bugs
...
Josef Spillner
Your script is buggy, fix it :-)
Are sponsored NMUs allowed in case of RC bugs
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 04:20:45PM +0200, Josef Spillner wrote:
On Monday 14 April 2003 09:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages. Bugs
...
Josef Spillner
Your script
Figures, there was a bug inherited from the original script that could
(semi-randomly) assign packages to the old maintainer if they were
adopted since potato. I have also filtered out packages which have
been removed from unstable but are still present in older suites. That
knocks the following
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 09:22:45PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
And introduces the people who adopted the offending packages:
Martin Butterweck ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Or not; I edited him out manually (pingus, which is orphaned and being
adopted very slowly) the first time around and forgot to
Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Colin Assuming you're [EMAIL PROTECTED], you have
Colin four open release-critical bugs, none of which have had any
Colin response, and three of which have been open since October.
Nope, that's a screwup on my part. The bugs belong to
11 matches
Mail list logo
