2008/6/11 Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > David Futcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Thanks for the feedback everyone. I have added a link to the example >> on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages. I also wrote >> a stock response for incomplete needs-packaging bugs at >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#head-ce88657d362e4aa60fe1dcc1c3ed78eaafcc8209. > > Please not that needs-packaging bugs should never be set to 'incomplete' > to prevent bug expiry. There is really no point in expiring > needs-packaging bugs, at some point someone will or will not package > it. > > Thinking a bit more about bug statuses, I don't see why needs-packaging > bugs should ever be 'confirmed'. What semantics should 'confirmed' have? > Either it is already in the archive, then it should be marked > 'fixreleased', or it become obsolete, in which case it should be in > state 'invalid'/'rejected'. > > If someone actually starts packaging on it, he should set himself as > assignee and mark the bug as 'inprogress'. Bugs 'inprogress' without > assignees are pointless and should go back to 'new' IMO. > > If nobody seriously disagrees with this triaging instructions, could the > bugsquad please integrate this instructions properly at the relevant > places of the existing documentation?
We confirm that it actually needs packaging - that it's not in the archive. I also look for duplicate requests, and check Debian. Caroline -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
