On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:31:16AM +0100, Mark Howard wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 08:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
> > excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages.
> Great work... Just wish I wasn't on there.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, LapTop006 wrote:
> > Is there any better way of keeping snapshot packages out of testing than
> > RC bugs?
> > Picking a random architecture and making its builds fail is not a valid
> > answer :)
> I had been thinking that, something like a control feild "Dists:
> unstable" (
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:31:16AM +0100, Mark Howard arranged a set of bits
into the following:
> On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 08:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
> > excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages.
> Great
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 08:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
> excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages.
Great work... Just wish I wasn't on there.
Is there any better way of keeping snapshot packages out of testin
> "Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Colin> Assuming you're <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you have
Colin> four open release-critical bugs, none of which have had any
Colin> response, and three of which have been open since October.
Nope, that's a screwup on my part. The bu
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 09:22:45PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> And introduces the people who adopted the offending packages:
> Martin Butterweck ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Or not; I edited him out manually (pingus, which is orphaned and being
adopted very slowly) the first time around and forgot to
Figures, there was a bug inherited from the original script that could
(semi-randomly) assign packages to the old maintainer if they were
adopted since potato. I have also filtered out packages which have
been removed from unstable but are still present in older suites. That
knocks the following pe
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 04:20:45PM +0200, Josef Spillner wrote:
> On Monday 14 April 2003 09:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
> > excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages. Bugs
> ...
> > Josef Spillner
>
> Your
On Monday 14 April 2003 09:44, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> This is a sorted (worst offenders first) list of maintainers who have
> excessive numbers of old RC bugs open against their packages. Bugs
...
> Josef Spillner
Your script is buggy, fix it :-)
Are sponsored NMUs allowed in case of RC bugs ri
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:21:48AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > If you don't understand why you are on this list, use the "maintainer
> > address" query on http://bugs.debian.org/ and look for old RC bugs. If
> > you still don't understand, mail m
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> If you don't understand why you are on this list, use the "maintainer
> address" query on http://bugs.debian.org/ and look for old RC bugs. If
> you still don't understand, mail me and I'll tell you.
You just should add the "maintainer address" to this
11 matches
Mail list logo
