On 15/03/22 at 10:36 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Answers were given, including by a former DPL (whom you may observe > is not someone I am on speaking terms with). > > But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway. > > I spent some time trying to help by setting out the factual > background, but it seems that Debian is not interested in facts. I > don't know why I bother.
Hi Ian, As explained in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00165.html I proceeded with the MBF for packages that match not (debian_x or (vcs and vcs_status != 'ERROR' and direct_changes)) or, maybe easier to read: (not debian_x) and ((not vcs) or vcs_status == 'ERROR' or (not direct_changes)) I did not file bugs for packages that are likely to use a VCS-based workflow (category (2) in the mail pointed above, or in https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi) What the are the packages for which you are surprised that bugs were filed? I wonder which part of the criteria was too loose. Also, feel free to close those bugs with a short explaining message. I'll try to summarize the reasons for not migrating packages in a couple of months. Lucas