Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>> 2. Your script does only look at the "xyz days old" age at the bug but not
>> at the day of the last retitle.
> Both are fixed now (I hope). The output now becomes:
[...]
> The following ITA's will be renamed to O's or RFA's[2]:
[...]
> - 107242 --> O: gsn-curses (109 days
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008 18:21]:
> > The debian-devel-announce list may be more suited, with a
> > Mail-Followup-To set to debian-devel.
>
> Perhaps it should be integrated with the main wnpp report. Yet
> another weekly report to d-d-announce is pr
Hi Yann!
You wrote:
> Maybe you're already aware of that, but it seems that the date you use
> as a reference for expiring a package is the report date, not the
> state change. Hence packages like treetool are in the same report
> declared as changed from ITA to O, and up for removal.
Hmm, I th
There are some false positives in the list of errors (ex: siag). You
should check the names of source packages, not binary packages.
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.alcove.com/
Free-Software EngineerIngénieur Logiciel-Libre
Free-Softw
Hi,
Maybe you're already aware of that, but it seems that the date you use
as a reference for expiring a package is the report date, not the
state change. Hence packages like treetool are in the same report
declared as changed from ITA to O, and up for removal.
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL P
* Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011120 01:01]:
> WNPP bug overview for Nov 19, 2001
> ===
>
> There are 809 WNPP bugs in the BTS, of which
> - 52 are RFA's (packages in need of adoption) [2 contrib, 3 non-free]
> - 88 are O
Hi Marcelo!
You wrote:
> > There are 809 WNPP bugs in the BTS, of which
> > - 52 are RFA's (packages in need of adoption) [2 contrib, 3 non-free]
>
> "offered up for adoption"?
OK.
> > - distributed-net-pproxy, 216 days orphaned, 0 RC bugs [non-free]
> > Description: Personal proxy
Hi Bas,
>> Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> WNPP bug overview for Nov 19, 2001
> ===
>
> There are 809 WNPP bugs in the BTS, of which
> - 52 are RFA's (packages in need of adoption) [2 contrib, 3 non-free]
&quo
ot happy with the lay-out though, any tips?)
WNPP bug overview for Nov 19, 2001
===
There are 809 WNPP bugs in the BTS, of which
- 52 are RFA's (packages in need of adoption) [2 contrib, 3 non-free]
- 88 are O's (orphaned packages) [6 contrib, 6 non-fr
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Both are fixed now (I hope). The output now becomes:
Thanks for your effort, Bas!
> The following packages are up for removal from the archive[1]:
How many days do we have until removal?
I would like at least the diff files archived because this could
p
Hi Martin!
You wrote:
> * Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008 18:21]:
> > The debian-devel-announce list may be more suited, with a
> > Mail-Followup-To set to debian-devel.
>
> Perhaps it should be integrated with the main wnpp report.
That shouldn't really be a problem. My script al
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 09:21:59PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008 18:21]:
> > The debian-devel-announce list may be more suited, with a
> > Mail-Followup-To set to debian-devel.
>
> Perhaps it should be integrated with the main wnpp report. Yet
> a
* Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008 18:21]:
> The debian-devel-announce list may be more suited, with a
> Mail-Followup-To set to debian-devel.
Perhaps it should be integrated with the main wnpp report. Yet
another weekly report to d-d-announce is probably not a good idea;
I doubt many
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi guys!
>
> I've written a script which generates overviews of the wnpp BTS entry.
> An example of a report in included below. These reports should enable
> us to clean out en keep healthy the wnpp bug entry.
> If no one object, I am going to send weekly reports to debian
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 03:53:03PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Aren't ITP's supposed to be wishlist, too?
Ah, sorry, I was getting ITA and ITP confused.
It'd be nice if there was some reasonable way for wnpp's "bugs" to be
reduced regularly. From what I can see, there are three sorts of entry
o be severity "important" to make it
> a bit easier to spot them?
Well, they are already sorted at the wnpp page...
BTW: here's the output of the lastest, debugged, script:
WNPP bug overview for Nov 18, 2001
===
There are 809 WNPP bugs in the BTS
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 05:32:22PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> My script can also automatically rename ITA's to O's and ITP's to RFP's.
> Orphaned packages are to be removed after:
> - 300 days (main, no RC bugs)
> - 50 days (contrib, no RC bugs)
> - 25 days (non-free, no RC
On 2007T204222+0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> - 88221 --> O: cvs2html (260 days old)
This is wrong, since cvs2html is not orphaned.
> The following errors were encountered:
> - 68290: orphaned package "malaga" does not exist in archive
It is a source package.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 05:32:22PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> My script can also automatically rename ITA's to O's and ITP's to RFP's.
> Do you like this idea?
Please make sure that you cc the person who submitted the ITA/ITP (who
isn't always the bug submitter) if you do this. For instance, my
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 05:32:22PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> The following packages are up for removal from the archive[1]:
> - O: yc-el, 400 days, main, 0 RC bugs
> - O: python-gendoc, 397 days, main, 0 RC bugs
IMO this would be more readable if it sorted by RC bugs, then by age.
> The fol
Hi Martin!
You wrote:
> > I've written a script which generates overviews of the wnpp BTS entry.
> Where are the sources?
~bas/wbos on master.
> > The following errors were encountered:
>
> The error checking doesn't work properly.
>
> > - 92447: ITA'ed package "siag" does not exist in arch
. Consider e.g. a 98 days old RFP.
>Someone retitles it to ITP because he wants to package this program.
>Your script wants to retitle it back three days later. The same is true
>for O/RFA and ITA.
Both are fixed now (I hope). The output now becomes:
* Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 17:32]:
> I've written a script which generates overviews of the wnpp BTS entry.
Where are the sources?
> The following errors were encountered:
The error checking doesn't work properly.
> - 92447: ITA'ed package "siag" does not exist in archive
I
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi guys!
Hi Bas!
> I've written a script which generates overviews of the wnpp BTS entry.
> An example of a report in included below. These reports should enable
>...
There are two serious bugs in your script:
1. Your script wants to retitle an RFA
o RFP's after 100 days
I'm looking forward to your opinions.
-----
WNPP bug overview for Nov 17, 2001
===
There are 817 WNPP bugs in the BTS, of which
- 42 are RFA's (packages in need of adoption) [2 contrib, 2 non-free]
- 73 are O's (orphan
25 matches
Mail list logo
