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
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
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
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
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote:
> As an aside, I find it very weird to close a RFS due to
> the inactivity of would-be sponsors: from the packager's
> side, it feels like a double punishment (getting ignored,
> then getting your RFS closed because you got ignored)...
X-Debbugs-CC: ba...@quantz.debian.org
Hi,
I reopened those 2 RFSes, as Bart closed them over the
packages not being on mentors.d.n anymore (due to a 20
days timeout).
I will reupload them momentarily, but as mentionned
in the previous emails they are available anyhow on
6 matches
Mail list logo
