This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: upload protocol
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 that everything's okay. RFU
>is exactly what it says: the request for upload. ITP followed by GTG
>implies that an RFU is coming shortly, but I agree with Chris, nothing
>should happen until that RFU *does* come. It gives the packager a
>chance to change something minor brought up in the ITP discussion, for
>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 yesterday Corinna
>uploaded from the ITP message.
>I'm not regretting my GTG. I thought the packages were at least no
>worse than my 1.7.4-1 packages that David's packages replace. But, I
>think David was expecting a second chance before sending the RFU.
Thanks for the real world example. That is exactly the kind of thing I
was talking about.