Quoting Alexander Reichle-Schmehl (alexan...@schmehl.info): > > If you approve this process, please let us know by replying to this > > mail. If some work in progress on your side would conflict with such a > > rewrite (such as adding or removing debconf templates), please say so, > > and we will defer the review to later in the development cycle. > > I would be welcome patches improving my templates, but would prefer if > you would not NMU, as I'm also working on a new upstream release.
For templates reviews, there is no NMU plan. At the end of the process, I usually send a full patch, then wait for the maintainer to upload a fixed version (including updated translations collected during the call for translations). The case where I NMU is when nothign happens after a few weeks, as the said package then appear on my radar named "packages with many translations and no upload for a while". Then I start an NMU process (but the maintainer has then many opportunities to object against it). > > However, I'm slightly confused: In this mail you say you start on the > May 31, but in a later mail you wrote: "This review will last from > Monday, May 28, 2012 to Thursday, June 07, 2012.", while your laste mail > to this bug report is a "Last call" containing "The reviewed templates > will be sent on Thursday, May 31, 2012". > > Maybe I missed something, but at a first glance all these dates seem to > contradict each other ;) That's because I speeded up the process. The "Intent to Review" mail was immediately followed by a Resuqest for Review" mail. The important thing are dates at the end of the last such automated mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
