On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 03:31:51AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: >On 10/9/2012 10:58 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"? > >That's how I thought it always worked. To my mind, ITP is only a trial >run, asking experienced packagers to test that everything's okay. RFU >is exactly what it says: the request for upload. ITP followed by GTG >implies that an RFU is coming shortly, but I agree with Chris, nothing >should happen until that RFU *does* come. It gives the packager a >chance to change something minor brought up in the ITP discussion, for >example. > >As it happens, I think this sort of gun-jumping happened with the >Doxygen 1.8.0-1 packages. I gave a GTG with reservations to the ITP, >several days ago. David said in the thread he was off working on >addressing some of those reservations, but then yesterday Corinna >uploaded from the ITP message. > >I'm not regretting my GTG. I thought the packages were at least no >worse than my 1.7.4-1 packages that David's packages replace. But, I >think David was expecting a second chance before sending the RFU.
Thanks for the real world example. That is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. cgf
