On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 09:00:52PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Marwan Tanager <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:38:56PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> >> Hi Marwan,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Marwan Tanager <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi all.
> >> >
> >> > I'm a recent subscriber to the Debian mentors and developers lists, and I
> >> > notice that some ITP requests are sent to debian-devel against wnpp and
> >> > others
> >> > to debian-mentors against sponsorship-requests.
> >> >
> >> > Could someone please clarify under what conditions should ITP requests
> >> > be sent
> >> > to either lists and against either pseudo-packages, because the requests
> >> > on
> >> > both lists look pretty similar?
> >>
> >> ITP bug reports are (or at least should) always be cc-ed to
> >> debian-devel; they can be filed by both DDs and non-DDs.
> >>
> >> Typically, package maintainers who are not either DDs or DMs, i.e. do
> >> not have upload rights to the Debian archive, will then file a RFS
> >> (request for sponsorship) bug report to ask for a DD to review and
> >> upload their package; these requests are always filed under the
> >> sponsorship-requests pseudo-package and cc-ed to debian-mentors.
> >
> > Thanks, Vincent.
> >
> > So, you're saying that if I've upload rights, I should file the report
> > against
> > wnpp and cc debian-devel?
>
> Regardless of whether or not you have upload rights, you should file
> an ITP report against wnpp and cc debian-devel. Also note that I say
> "should" instead of "must"; it's not a requirement for an ITP bug to
> be filed prior to uploading a new package (it's not mandated by
> Policy, but dev-ref [1] instead), but it's fairly common practice and
> there's no reason not to do so.
Well, now I got it. Thanks.
--
Marwan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130404042746.GF11424@host
