Hi, Cyril, thanks for your reply. (I'm not even sure I should send this one, as I dont add much...)
On Sunday 30 November 2008 05:24, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Huh? We are in a permanent bugsquashing party, cause we want to
> > > release lenny.
> Still, coordination and communication matter.
I fully agree.
> It sounds to me that just saying
> “ACK, no need to NMU, we're actively working on getting this fixed”
> after the severity got bumped would have done the job.
I think so too.
> > > This is a RC bugs since three weeks, so I rather think the
> > > php-maintainers have been unpolite leaving it open so long...
> Maybe Holger meant “without any reply”, but I can't speak for him.
Yup.
> Coordination and communication got lacking, no need to get so angry. ;)
Amen.
On Sunday 30 November 2008 05:04, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Right, but it is a DFSG-freeness issue and those take time to
> *properly* resolve.
That depends, sometimes removal of those bits doesnt hurt. Also, removing
those bits is usually better than removing the package.
Having an RC bug open without a reply for three weeks at this stage of the
release is just not acceptable.
regards,
Holger
pgpnRDipNCltS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
