Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I'm not sure that I'd be too excited to have reject mails
> archived on the BTS when I'm on the receiving end, but I guess that's
> just me. In most of the cases they would seem to add little value to the
> ITP bug.
Well, they would be pre
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
That can be easily determined by looking in the .changes for the
"closes" field. If more than one, you can check to see which has "ITP"
in the title. If there is no closes, then assume that there is no ITP
and that's it.
I would suggest you always check for which o
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about BCC'ing the reject mail to a mailing list with a public,
> web-browsable archive?
Yes, even publicly available report is also fine.
--
Cheers,
Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_
Homepage: people.debi
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1] sane does not mean
> - assume that every uploader does it right and closes ITPs in
> changelog (or even mention them),
> - parsing wnpp bug data everytime
How about BCC'ing the reject mail to a mailing list with a public,
web-browsab
Hi,
Kartik Mistry wrote:
> I have seen that many packages are rejected from NEW [1] due to either
> licensing or poor packaging and we know the reasons [2] too.
> It will be very helpful if Rejection is also mailed to ITP (where it
> apply) so, that anyone can look at actual reason and fix proble
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:10:38PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > It will be very helpful if Rejection is also mailed to ITP (where it
> > apply) so, that anyone can look at actual reason and fix problem
> > (packaging, contacting upstream for license issues etc).
>
> Fine.
>
> If you
>
> -
> It will be very helpful if Rejection is also mailed to ITP (where it
> apply) so, that anyone can look at actual reason and fix problem
> (packaging, contacting upstream for license issues etc).
Fine.
If you
- get a uniform (and not too hard) way to know which ITP(s) belong to
the package
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Kartik Mistry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have seen that many packages are rejected from NEW [1] due to either
> licensing or poor packaging and we know the reasons [2] too.
>
> It will be very helpful if Rejection is also mailed to ITP (where it
> apply) so, th
Hi,
I have seen that many packages are rejected from NEW [1] due to either
licensing or poor packaging and we know the reasons [2] too.
It will be very helpful if Rejection is also mailed to ITP (where it
apply) so, that anyone can look at actual reason and fix problem
(packaging, contacting upst
9 matches
Mail list logo
