Hi Andreas, teams that use the PET [1] use this flag to distinguish packages that are still worked on (UNRELEASED) and packages where the maintainer searches a sponsor (unstable/experimental). The PET uses this to determine whether to display the package as ready for upload or not [2]. In teams that strictly use this workflow (I think the Perl Team is one of them) it is not necessary to ask for a sponsor on the list.
The fact that the package was uploaded is then indicated in the vcs by the debian revision tag which is created by the sponsor. [1] http://pet.alioth.debian.org/ [2] http://pet.debian.net/pkg-perl/pet.cgi One can of course do it differently, but this is why I considered removing UNRELEASED when one is ready a standard practice. Cheers, Tobias On 08/04/2014 01:52 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 11:30:13AM +0200, Tobias Hansen wrote: >> >> please set the targeted distribution in the changelog to unstable, then >> I'll sponsor it. (It's always a good idea to do that before asking for a >> sponsor.) > > Never say always. :-) I personally tend to give the contrary advise to > leave it at UNRELEASED since as long as the package is not yet sponsered > it is actually UNRELEASED and a long seek for a sponsor might lead to > the wrong assumption that the package was uploaded (long) before and > nobody will care about the package. Since the sponsor is doing the > actual upload to unstable I personally do this last change while also > keeping the chance of doing some minor change to the package I feel > apropriate without doing a "Please change this - please sponsor the > changes" round. I think this workflow is more efficient. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
