This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: upload protocol
- From: Warren Young <warren at etr-usa dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:31:51 -0600
- Subject: Re: upload protocol
- References: <20121009165836.GA11886@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
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
example.
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.