* Filippo Rusconi <rusconi-deb...@laposte.net> [2009-10-13 12:06:29 CEST]: > Well, I think that ITP bugs are *more* useful when the person reading > the bug report can tell what the intended-to-be-packaged software > does.
There's always the upstream URL included that you can follow if you think it's unclear anyway. > Sometimes, when I go through ITP bug reports, I find myself thinking > "Hmmm, that's interesting stuff, I'll have to check that from time to > time" I consider it much more practical to go through the new packages in the pools instead, for several reasons: -) you can already actually directly try the packages out instead of having to crave for it to appear in the pool -) you can already actually write bugreports about bad package descriptions (which I do regularly) -) you don't waste your time on ITPs that turns out to never appear in the pool or die away upstream wise (which unfortunately does happen from time to time) Of course, going through ITPs has its benefits too, but I guess checking what's new in the pool might be more promising for your approach and less waste of time because of "check that from time to time". :) So long, and thanks anyway for your inputs! Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
