On Tue, Dec 24 2019, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 10:51:04 AM EST John Goerzen wrote: > ... >> pygopherd was removed from testing. That makes sense. But also from >> sid, hours after I replied to the bug about this explaining that I was >> actively working on a port and asking it not to be removed. It was >> anyway. That doesn't make sense. My question now is: is it worth >> bothering to finish the port? I honestly don't know the answer to that. >> The only reason I was porting it was for Debian. It will now have to go >> through NEW again, and it appears that getting things out of NEW is iffy >> at best. > ... > > To follow up on this one point: > > That was me. I saw your bug comment, but had forgotten about it when > processing removals several hours later. In the future, please add a > moreinfo > tag to the rm bug if it should not be actioned. > > In cases like this where I inadvertently removed something that should have > been retained, I'm happy to give it a quick review in New. When you have > your > python3 port ready, please ping me in #debian-ftp and I'll have a look. > Please don't let this case dampen your enthusiasm for working on > Debian.
Thank you, Scott! I really appreciate it! > More generally, New is being processed as fast as it can given available > volunteer time. Any delays are not reflective of a lack of value placed on > people's contributions. Again I should clarify: I wasn't trying to say it was the FTP team to blame at all. But as a project, we need to take this more seriously and think about ways we might be able to help you folks out, spread to load, or change some of our processes. John
