From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19680 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2012 14:01:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 19669 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2012 14:01:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mho-04-ewr.mailhop.org (HELO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org) (204.13.248.74) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:01:30 +0000 Received: from pool-173-76-44-35.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([173.76.44.35] helo=cgf.cx) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TLwqn-0003Vb-Nd for cygwin-apps@cygwin.com; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:01:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277FD42800C for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:01:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+FxegFjnoLidgGecv1Q2OS Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:01:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: upload protocol Message-ID: <20121010140129.GA21113@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <20121009165836.GA11886@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <50754087.5020600@etr-usa.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50754087.5020600@etr-usa.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00122.txt.bz2 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 >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. Thanks for the real world example. That is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. cgf