Hi Bart,
On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 02:04:14PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > I agree that the ITP->RFP script was helpful to change the status of the
> > bug and it would be good to check if this keeps on working.
>
> My script doesn't do that anymore. That is intentional. For many ITPs without
>
Hi,
sorry for the late reply.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 09:36:58PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > But WNPP is problematic on its own: Right now, we have 1586 normal
> > priority open bugs, 4613 wishlist open bugs (what would the
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 6:01 PM Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>
> On 2021-06-14 16:22:31 +0200 (+0200), Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> [...]
> > How about sending a digest of a potential debian-itp to d-d on a
> > weekly basis? I think we wouldn't lose any reviews with this, I
> > would even go as far and
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, at 09:57, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:05:57PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > I've read numerous people complaining about filtering. If I'm not
> > mistaking, the BTS adds this header:
> >
> > X-Debian-PR-Package: wnpp
> >
> > so filtering
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:05:57PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I've read numerous people complaining about filtering. If I'm not
> mistaking, the BTS adds this header:
>
> X-Debian-PR-Package: wnpp
>
> so filtering based on that seems to be a much nicer way than just using
> the subject line.
On 6/11/21 12:17 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> When I subscribed
> to debian-devel directly, I most often filtered ITP mail into a separate
> mailbox, to read at separate times.
I've read numerous people complaining about filtering. If I'm not
mistaking, the BTS adds this header:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:26:09AM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Honestly I thought that being able to cope with
> large quantities of email--researching new solutions and implementing
> them if necessary--was part of job description of doing Debian work,
I don't like this kind of phrasing.
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 6/12/21 1:06 PM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 01:04:21 +0300, Nicholas Guriev
>> wrote:
>>> For the record, the latest digest of the debian-devel@ list #194
>>> consists of 17 emails. 13 of them are ITP forwards, the remaining 4
>>> emails are about ITP
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 16:01:32 +, Jeremy Stanley
wrote:
>If these were aggregated into a digest, fitting the names of all the
>relevant software into the subject would be unlikely a lot of the
>time. As such, list subscribers are far less likely to spot one for
>software they might care about.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 04:22:31PM +0200, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 4:26 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> > To be honest, I think if we did that we'd lose just about all the
> > reviews that currently happen. The whole point of sending ITPs to
> > d-devel is that they will be
On 2021-06-14 16:22:31 +0200 (+0200), Stephan Lachnit wrote:
[...]
> How about sending a digest of a potential debian-itp to d-d on a
> weekly basis? I think we wouldn't lose any reviews with this, I
> would even go as far and claim that there will be more reviews,
> since it's less of an
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 4:26 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> Jon Dowland wrote:
> >
> >I think the ITP mails can make reading the rest of the list difficult
> >without extra local filtering or steps. Some times they are the
> >majority of the list traffic. I think it would be better if
> >ITP mail
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I concur with Steve. Often, I decide to ignore ITPs, or get annoyed or
> overwhelmed when very prolific teams (hi nodejs!) announce and set to
> package hundreds of packages I won't have any interest on.
Yeah; I often ignore ITPs too.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:28:33PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Wouldn't it just be far simpler for those who wish not to receive the
> ITPs to filter them out to a subfolder of debian-devel or discard them?
Others have covered the specifics of NNTP here; and at least one person
has
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:45:20PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> To be honest, I think if we did that we'd lose just about all the
> reviews that currently happen. The whole point of sending ITPs to
> d-devel is that they will be seen by a wider audience, but I can't see
> many signing up for YA
On 6/12/21 1:06 PM, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 01:04:21 +0300, Nicholas Guriev
> wrote:
>> For the record, the latest digest of the debian-devel@ list #194
>> consists of 17 emails. 13 of them are ITP forwards, the remaining 4
>> emails are about ITP forwarding.
>
> This is an
On 2021-06-12 Jonathan Carter wrote:
> On 2021/06/11 12:33, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Jonathan explained that it wasn't easy for him due to reading over NNTP
> > and I also think that it's a bad default to have lists where custom
> > filtering is desirable for many.
> Ah, I haven't used NNTP in
On 2021/06/11 12:33, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Jonathan explained that it wasn't easy for him due to reading over NNTP
> and I also think that it's a bad default to have lists where custom
> filtering is desirable for many.
Ah, I haven't used NNTP in 22 years so the details to its limitations
have
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 01:04:21 +0300, Nicholas Guriev
wrote:
>For the record, the latest digest of the debian-devel@ list #194
>consists of 17 emails. 13 of them are ITP forwards, the remaining 4
>emails are about ITP forwarding.
This is an exceptional day. debian-devel usually doesn't see that
For the record, the latest digest of the debian-devel@ list #194
consists of 17 emails. 13 of them are ITP forwards, the remaining 4
emails are about ITP forwarding. And Evolution, due to a bug[1], opens
the digest for 2 minutes 14 seconds. ️
If the ITP reports went to a different list,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> But WNPP is problematic on its own: Right now, we have 1586 normal
> priority open bugs, 4613 wishlist open bugs (what would the difference
> be? It seems *most* normal are O and RFA, while ITPs, RFPs and such
> are mostly wishlist...
Steve McIntyre dijo [Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:45:20PM +]:
> >I think the ITP mails can make reading the rest of the list difficult
> >without extra local filtering or steps. Some times they are the
> >majority of the list traffic. I think it would be better if
> >ITP mail went to a separate,
Hi Jon!
Jon Dowland wrote:
>
>ITP bugs are copied to debian-devel@. The intention, I think, is to make
>sure that they have many eyes on them. ITP bugs often get feedback from
>readers of debian-devel.
>
>I think this is valuable. However, it's one job/task/role, and sometimes
>One wishes to
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Wouldn't it just be far simpler for those who wish not to receive the
> ITPs to filter them out to a subfolder of debian-devel or discard them?
Jonathan explained that it wasn't easy for him due to reading over NNTP
and I also think that it's a
On 2021/06/11 12:17, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> ITP bugs are copied to debian-devel@. The intention, I think, is to make
> sure that they have many eyes on them. ITP bugs often get feedback from
> readers of debian-devel.
>
> I think this is valuable. However, it's one job/task/role, and
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:17 am, Jonathan Dowland
wrote:
Hi,
ITP bugs are copied to debian-devel@. The intention, I think, is to
make
sure that they have many eyes on them. ITP bugs often get feedback
from
readers of debian-devel.
I think this is valuable. However, it's one
Hi,
ITP bugs are copied to debian-devel@. The intention, I think, is to make
sure that they have many eyes on them. ITP bugs often get feedback from
readers of debian-devel.
I think this is valuable. However, it's one job/task/role, and sometimes
One wishes to focus on other jobs/tasks/roles
27 matches
Mail list logo
