On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 07:50 +0200, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to close bugs that hasn't recieved more info
in X days than bugs that had their initial post in Y days?
Some packages are trickier than others to create and may therefor take
more time. As long as people
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 12:03 +0200, Vedran Furac wrote:
than 600 days by tonight (or if anything goes wrong -I have an exam
Before you do that:
Yeah, I know there are packages that should not be closed, probably, and
they could just hide from the view and be closed. What I really trust is
Bas Zoetekouw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi David!
About ITP's, they should be retitled to RFPs, rather than closed. That
way, other people can have a go at packaging the software.
I concur. If someone did not produce a packge withing NN days (say 3
months) after ITP, the system should
Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:34:51PM +0200, Vedran Furac wrote:
Btw. why then mencoder, can't be packaged? Why are only ffmpeg -dev in
debian: http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/ffmpeg.html?
Only ffmpeg-dev is in Debian as ffmpeg upstream recommends
Hi David!
You wrote:
Talking with adn on IRC, I've decided to launch an script that will
close every opened ITP and RFP bug on the BTS with a lifetime greater
than 600 days by tonight (or if anything goes wrong -I have an exam
tomorrow noon-, by tomorrow night). I'll point to documentation
David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
But my intention was not to read the whole list and do this by hand!
This should be done by the same script which sends the sem automated
mails to the BTS.
As there is a consensus that it is a good idea to
Vedran Furac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
- note that there is software that probably can't be packaged:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=203211
Christian Marillat wrote:
Vedran Furac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...]
- note that there is software that probably can't be packaged:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=203211
Vedran Furac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian Marillat wrote:
Vedran Furac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Package already in Debian : gstreamer0.8-ffmpeg
Ops, then it should be closed.
Btw. why then mencoder, can't be packaged? Why are only ffmpeg -dev in
Normaly, encoder can't be
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:34:51PM +0200, Vedran Furac wrote:
Btw. why then mencoder, can't be packaged? Why are only ffmpeg -dev in
debian: http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/ffmpeg.html?
Only ffmpeg-dev is in Debian as ffmpeg upstream recommends static linking
due to not having fixed the
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 07:50 +0200, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to close bugs that hasn't recieved more info
in X days than bugs that had their initial post in Y days?
Some packages are trickier than others to create and may therefor take
more time. As long as people
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 12:03 +0200, Vedran Furac wrote:
than 600 days by tonight (or if anything goes wrong -I have an exam
Before you do that:
Yeah, I know there are packages that should not be closed, probably, and
they could just hide from the view and be closed. What I really trust is
Hi,
* Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-13 10:37]:
ti, 2005-09-13 kello 01:45 +0200, Alexander Schmehl kirjoitti:
Close RFP after ... uhm... let's say 1 year inactivity and send the
submitter an apology, that we couldn't find a volunteer for the
requested package, should to very
Scripsit Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-13 10:37]:
There was a discussion about closing old RFPs on -project in the middle
of July (around the 13th, I think). I really should get acting on the
consensus of that thread and close the old RFPs.
But my
Hi!
* Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050913 02:46]:
[ long RFPs ]
Or don't even open RFP bugs in the first place because they're
thoroughly useless?
Do you have a proposal for a better way on how our users can request /
suggest software to be packaged?
I don't think RFPs per se are useless -
[Alexander Schmehl]
I don't think RFPs per se are useless - actually I have a list of
some 20 RFPs I would like to take a deeper look to, as soon as I
have some time - it's just that it's difficult to look at so many
wnpps.
I agree. There are packages I would like to assist into the archive
Hi!
Do you have a proposal for a better way on how our users can request /
suggest software to be packaged?
I don't think RFPs per se are useless - actually I have a list of some
20 RFPs I would like to take a deeper look to, as soon as I have some
time - it's just that it's difficult to
Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
* Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050913 02:46]:
[ long RFPs ]
Or don't even open RFP bugs in the first place because they're
thoroughly useless?
Do you have a proposal for a better way on how our users can request /
suggest software to be
Radu Spineanu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you have a proposal for a better way on how our users can request /
suggest software to be packaged?
I don't think RFPs per se are useless - actually I have a list of some
20 RFPs I would like to take a deeper look to, as soon as I have some
time -
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 13:05 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Perhaps we should have some voting mechanism, to let users tell us
which missing packages are most wanted?
Probably something like a rfp-request-seconded tag on the bug could
work. Although rfp-request is somehow redundant.
Cheers,
Re: David Moreno Garza in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Probably something like a rfp-request-seconded tag on the bug could
work. Although rfp-request is somehow redundant.
Maybe some usertags-hack? But then, the people who know how that works
could as well package the RFP themselves...
Christoph
--
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 19:06 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Maybe it would a good idea to create a new web interface for the wnpp bugs.
At least something that has the ability to put ITPs,RFPs in separate
pages,
You mean like http://www.us.debian.org/devel/wnpp/?
But the proposal on
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005, Christoph Berg wrote:
Maybe some usertags-hack?
That is exactly what we are working on, with Clément Stenac and Marc
'HE' Brockschmidt. Here[1] is a list of tags we intend to use.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/WNPPBugsTagging
Please no Cc:, I read the list.
--
Mohammed
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 19:36 +0200, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote:
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/WNPPBugsTagging
This is a great work, thanks.
Is there any plan to start using it and tagging?
Cheers,
--
David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.damog.net/
[EMAIL
* David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050913 19:11]:
Perhaps we should have some voting mechanism, to let users tell us
which missing packages are most wanted?
Probably something like a rfp-request-seconded tag on the bug could
work. Although rfp-request is somehow redundant.
Currently
Radu Spineanu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At least something that has the ability to put ITPs,RFPs in separate
pages,
You mean like http://www.us.debian.org/devel/wnpp/?
Yes, something like that. But change the information shown on each page
depending of the type of wnpp entry.
For example,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:06:22PM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
* David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050913 19:11]:
Perhaps we should have some voting mechanism, to let users tell us
which missing packages are most wanted?
Probably something like a rfp-request-seconded tag on the
* Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050913 21:35]:
[ vote for RFPs ]
Currently everyone interested in such a package could send a me too
mail to the report...
That isn't going to do much good if nobody ever reads them.
For a me too thing to be useful, it needs to be immediately clear that
Hi,
* Mohammed Adnène Trojette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-13 22:21]:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005, Christoph Berg wrote:
Maybe some usertags-hack?
That is exactly what we are working on, with Clément Stenac and Marc
'HE' Brockschmidt. Here[1] is a list of tags we intend to use.
[1]
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 20:36, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005, Christoph Berg wrote:
Maybe some usertags-hack?
That is exactly what we are working on, with Clément Stenac and Marc
'HE' Brockschmidt. Here[1] is a list of tags we intend to use.
[1]
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 11:02 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
But my intention was not to read the whole list and do this by hand!
This should be done by the same script which sends the sem automated
mails to the BTS.
As there is a consensus that it is a good idea to close long-inactive
RFPs
David Moreno Garza [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Talking with adn on IRC, I've decided to launch an script that will
close every opened ITP and RFP bug on the BTS with a lifetime greater
than 600 days by tonight (or if anything goes wrong -I have an exam
tomorrow noon-, by tomorrow night).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no good reason to close old RFPs unless the upstream source
has diseappeared.
The spectacular amount of clutter they provide -- rendering the wnpp bug list
unreadable unless you ignore them all -- combined with their total
uselessness? Seems like a pair of
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 19:47 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
There is no good reason to close old RFPs unless the upstream source
has diseappeared.
Old ITPs should be turned into RFPs, not closed.
Well, actually the wnpp bugs are probably the dirtiest part on the BTS:
Understanding dirtiest
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no good reason to close old RFPs unless the upstream source
has diseappeared.
The spectacular amount of clutter they provide -- rendering the wnpp bug list
unreadable unless you ignore them all -- combined with
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is no good reason to close old RFPs unless the upstream source
has diseappeared.
Old ITPs should be turned into RFPs, not closed.
I don't agree. If there's no current interest in having the package
created, having the bug open actually
David Moreno Garza @ 2005-09-13 (Tuesday), 18:06 (-0500)
Talking with adn on IRC, I've decided to launch an script that will
close every opened ITP and RFP bug on the BTS with a lifetime greater
than 600 days by tonight
Wouldn't it make more sense to close bugs that hasn't recieved more info
Hi,
If you go through the list of wnpp bugs you will see alot of
open bugs which are very very old.
Especially the RFPs. What about closing an RFP bug
automatically after the third semi automatic notice mail
which is sent to the BTS entry?
Regards Nico
--
Nico Golde - JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:47:33AM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
Hi,
If you go through the list of wnpp bugs you will see alot of
open bugs which are very very old.
Especially the RFPs. What about closing an RFP bug
automatically after the third semi automatic notice mail
which is sent to the
Hi,
* Andrew Pollock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-13 01:07]:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:47:33AM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
Hi,
If you go through the list of wnpp bugs you will see alot of
open bugs which are very very old.
Especially the RFPs. What about closing an RFP bug
automatically
* Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050913 00:47]:
Especially the RFPs. What about closing an RFP bug
automatically after the third semi automatic notice mail
which is sent to the BTS entry?
What is the purpose of this mail? Either there is someone interested in
packaging it, or you won't find
ti, 2005-09-13 kello 01:45 +0200, Alexander Schmehl kirjoitti:
Close RFP after ... uhm... let's say 1 year inactivity and send the
submitter an apology, that we couldn't find a volunteer for the
requested package, should to very well.
There was a discussion about closing old RFPs on -project
Andrew Pollock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:47:33AM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
Hi,
If you go through the list of wnpp bugs you will see alot of
open bugs which are very very old.
Especially the RFPs. What about closing an RFP bug
automatically after the third semi
43 matches
Mail list logo
