Hello, On Tue 15 Mar 2022 at 04:16pm +01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 15/03/22 at 10:36 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Answers were given, including by a former DPL (whom you may observe >> is not someone I am on speaking terms with). >> >> But I see now that the MBF has gone ahead anyway. >> >> I spent some time trying to help by setting out the factual >> background, but it seems that Debian is not interested in facts. I >> don't know why I bother. > > Hi Ian, > > As explained in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00165.html > I proceeded with the MBF for packages that match > not (debian_x or (vcs and vcs_status != 'ERROR' and direct_changes)) > or, maybe easier to read: > (not debian_x) and ((not vcs) or vcs_status == 'ERROR' or (not > direct_changes)) > > I did not file bugs for packages that are likely to use a VCS-based > workflow (category (2) in the mail pointed above, or in > https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/format10.cgi) > > What the are the packages for which you are surprised that bugs were > filed? I wonder which part of the criteria was too loose. It looks like the query didn't do quite what was intended, indeed: src:userv-utils is maintained in git but a bug was filed. Before I go ahead and close the bug, would you mind confirming this was an error rather than a disagreement about what counts as VCS-maintained? Thanks. -- Sean Whitton
