Bug#862114: Bug#862115: RFS: xe/0.8-1 (ITP, #862114) & lr/0.4-1 (ITP, #862115)

2017-10-30 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 15:01 +0100, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote: > Oh, I didn't realise this wasn't a person :O Yeah, it probably should migrate to mentors and a more obvious sender address. > I guess the obvious solution is for me to become a DD and sponsor uploads :P That would definitely

Bug#862114: Bug#862115: RFS: xe/0.8-1 (ITP, #862114) & lr/0.4-1 (ITP, #862115)

2017-10-30 Thread Nicolas Braud-Santoni
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:56:10PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote: > > I appreciate that Bart was likely trying to triage RFSes, but closing it > > rather than asking to reupload to mentors.d.n feels somewhat unfriendly, > > especially when

Bug#862114: Bug#862115: RFS: xe/0.8-1 (ITP, #862114) & lr/0.4-1 (ITP, #862115)

2017-10-30 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote: > This RFS is a pretty good example: there was no new upstream version, and > no review (or any sort of activity on the RFS) since June, while the timeout > on mentors.debian.net is only 20 days. The best you can do in that situation

Bug#862114: Bug#862115: RFS: xe/0.8-1 (ITP, #862114) & lr/0.4-1 (ITP, #862115)

2017-10-30 Thread Nicolas Braud-Santoni
Hi pabs, On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 08:51:03PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > Even if you haven't got a sponsor yet, RFS submitters should still be > maintaining the packages as they would if they were in the archive. > That means updating to new upstreams, fixing any review comments, > checking with