On August 31, 2015 7:40:00 AM EDT, Andreas Henriksson <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello again. > >On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:02:01AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Yeah. Sigh. Instead of jumping to negative conclusions and getting >angry, how about just asking the question if you are unsure. > >I did ask questions. I also gave you context so you'd easier know what >information I needed. > >> >> In this case "take care of" probably means file a removal bug for the >rdepend and then remove the moreinfo tag once that's been processed. >> >> We get stacks of removal bugs and there's no way the FTP team can >keep mental track of the state of all of them. The moreinfo tag is our >tool to know when it's time to review a bug again. > >Are you sure you want me to spam you with even more (autogenerated!) >removal >bugs then? Why not track the same issue in the same bug report and just >implement an automatic recursive function for your removal tools?! >(Or handle it manually if you prefer, but refer to the same bug report >to get full context in case anyone wants to keep track of what happened >in the future.) > >It seems very counter-productive to increase your load by implementing >a spam-tools on my side to hand you even more removal requests, rather >then handling it on the receiving end... > >> >> No bullying, just asking for a little help moving along the removal >you asked for. > >I've spent quite a lot of time on making sure both removal bugs I asked >for yesterday are actually ready to happen *now*. Thats why they where >filed. (eg. both #797429 and #797441 ) > >Please reconfirm you want to be spammed with a separate bug report per >recusive reverse dependency removal.
We don't manually deal with each bug. With one report per package they are properly parsed so they end up here: https://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.html That's what we actually review when processing manual removals. So yes, one bug per package is what works best for our tools. Scott K
