[Pkg-nagios-devel] Bug#674859: [ITR] templates://nagvis/{nagvis.templates}

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Alexander Reichle-Schmehl (alexander at schmehl.info):

> > If you approve this process, please let us know by replying to this
> > mail. If some work in progress on your side would conflict with such a
> > rewrite (such as adding or removing debconf templates), please say so,
> > and we will defer the review to later in the development cycle.
> 
> I would be welcome patches improving my templates, but would prefer if
> you would not NMU, as I'm also working on a new upstream release.

For templates reviews, there is no NMU plan. At the end of the
process, I usually send a full patch, then wait for the maintainer to
upload a fixed version (including updated translations collected
during the call for translations).

The case where I NMU is when nothign happens after a few weeks, as the
said package then appear on my radar named "packages with many
translations and no upload for a while". Then I start an NMU process
(but the maintainer has then many opportunities to object against it).

> 
> However, I'm slightly confused:  In this mail you say you start on the
> May 31, but in a later mail you wrote: "This review will last from
> Monday, May 28, 2012 to Thursday, June 07, 2012.", while your laste mail
> to this bug report is a "Last call" containing "The reviewed templates
> will be sent on Thursday, May 31, 2012".
> 
> Maybe I missed something, but at a first glance all these dates seem to
> contradict each other ;)


That's because I speeded up the process. The "Intent to Review" mail
was immediately followed by a Resuqest for Review" mail.

The important thing are dates at the end of the last such automated
mail.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-nagios-devel/attachments/20120531/20e5e93e/attachment.pgp>