On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Chen Baozi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > On Jun 23, 2014, at 9:33, Vincent Cheng <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Wookey, >> >> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Wookey via nm <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I advocate Chen Baozi to become Debian Developer, uploading. >>> Advocacy text: >> [...] >>> He has uploaded a pile of packages to debian-mentors for checking/bug >>> filing/NMUing, which I am working through, but would like him to be able to >>> do himself in due course. >> >> I've noticed that there are a few small but glaring issues with the >> NMUs for which Chen has uploaded to mentors.d.n / filed RFS bugs for >> sponsorship-requests, e.g. wrong version numbers ("+cfg"?) which >> aren't suitable for NMUs, targeting "unreleased" instead of unstable, >> not closing relevant bug reports in d/changelog, etc., which he hasn't >> addressed when others pointed them out on his RFS bug reports (e.g. >> #750419). Hopefully you or his AM will take a bit of time to cover the >> relevant sections in devref to make sure he's aware of those issues. >> :) > > Thanks for pointing out the issues. > > In fact, those 'RFS bugs’ were filed at the very beginning when I was > fixing FTBFS bugs for arm64. The wrong version numbers (“+cfg”) were added > by following the debian-ports' 'Upload Policy’ > (http://www.ports.debian.org/archive). The ‘unreleased’ archive is a > temporary archive to help debian arm64 ports > (http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/dists/unreleased/). I uploaded those > packages to mentors.debian.net so that Wookey could get them, check > their qualities and finally do the upload (to ‘unreleased’ of debian-ports), > since I don’t have right to do so. I filed the RFS bugs by trying to follow > a more formal way to let Wookey know that the packages were uploaded and > where they locates. However, it turns out that ‘debian ports upload policy’ > is slightly different, and I realised that those RFS reports are actually > not suitable for our current porting work (In fact, I also realised that ‘RFS’ > should be made when someone cannot find a sponsor and I’ve already got one). > > Yes, I think I need to cancel all my ‘RFS’ to avoid further misunderstanding > on them.
Ah, thanks for the clarification; I was unaware that debian-ports has different policies in place. And yes, cancelling those RFS bug reports would be ideal, and I see that you've done that already. Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tBzNEJxcGGiPjWg0QsyHZ185gtxpv9gjx62j67f=vb...@mail.gmail.com
