Hello, Sandro, thanks for you kind reply
2010/9/3 Sandro Tosi <[email protected]> wrote: > Sadly, this absence of reply is not something surprising me (and > others I think, as also Paul discovered[0]). This lack of > communication, interest and the overcommitting of Matthias is what has > made us call to the Technical Committee about Python maintainership. > Given this is a perfect example of what we wanted to show, I add the > TC bug in CC, to also show that situation is still going on. > > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/09/msg00018.html > >> I'd like to know what steps should be done so I could work on this >> package in future without being misunderstood. > > For such situations, it's always better to publicly send your "pings" > (the email you sent privately to Matthias about the status of the > package) using the Debian BTS for example, like you did (but only > partially) in [1]. Also, directly add in CC Matthias, even for bugs on > his packages, so there won't be any comments like "ah, but he was not > directly in the loop" (yes, this happens...), so I'm doing it now, > even if Romain already did[2], without any public reply from Matthias. Thanks for the hints. > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587313 > [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/08/msg00268.html > >> That conversation also showed me some things on Debian release >> management I didn't know about >> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/08/msg00264.html). I >> understood that the package cannot be uploaded to unstable since it >> could pass to testing just with the flow of time without any humanity >> checks. But I know nothing concerning upload to experimental branch >> and its policy. Can you advice any documents or other information >> sources on these policies concerning approving huge changes in the >> package structure? > > I am too lazy to check :) but you probably can find something about > the "freeze" process in the Debian policy and/or Developers Reference. > Just to do a very brief recap, during a freeze any upload to unstable > won't transition to testing (that will be the new stable) unless > accepted by a Release Team member. Experimental is "free to use" for > cases like yours, so the buildbot upload has to be targetting > experimental, and be tested there until we release and then be > uploaded to unstable. Thanks, I'll search a bit harder there. Does this means all the packages uploaded to mentors are going to unstable by default? Should I directly specify the target branch in an RFS (not for this case but in common)? >> Another question I am worried about is a quality of my solution made >> in the package. I believe it is not bad but I feel there's could be >> better ways to do that. Can you please advice where I can discuss my >> solution and the way to improve them? > > Given it's a python application, you'd be much welcomed to join[3] the > PAPT[4] and maintain the package there. In any case, you can discuss > python "stuff" packaging on [email protected] and for > fast replies on IRC on #debian-python channel on irc.debian.org > server. > > [3] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin > [4] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonAppsPackagingTeam Thanks for the invitation! Hope I can be useful. Thanks again. -- with best regards, Andriy Senkovych -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
