This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]