On Oct 10 18:46, David Stacey wrote:
> On 10/10/12 10:31, Warren Young wrote:
> >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 address
On 10/10/2012 11:46 AM, David Stacey wrote:
As a newbie, I didn't know whether to wait for more comments, or to
submit a [RFU] (as I'd been given a GTG)
All of the discussion was questions of whether, not how or why. So, I
think you should have just made the changes you wanted to make, and
On 10/10/12 10:31, Warren Young wrote:
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 yester
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 t
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
On Oct 9 12:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
> As an uploader, I'd rather not have to scan conversations for clues
> for when a package is ready for upload.
>
> I was actually waiting for Jari to send an RFU for the packages that
> he
On 10/9/2012 6:58 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
As an uploader, I'd rather not have to scan conversations for clues
for when a package is ready for upload.
I was actually waiting for Jari to send an RFU for the packages that
he'd re
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:30:30PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
>On 2012-10-09 12:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>| Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
>| As an uploader, I'd rather not have to scan conversations for clues
>| for when a package is ready for upload.
>
>Perha
On 2012-10-09 12:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
| Would it make sense to always wait for an "RFU" after an "ITP"?
| As an uploader, I'd rather not have to scan conversations for clues
| for when a package is ready for upload.
Perhaps appending "GTG" to a end of subject would be all that is
needed
