ivgalvez at gmail
Apr 27, 2012, 3:37 AM
Post #4 of 6
The other issue is about those packages that have fulfilled the criteria
but, probably due to the long time waiting in the queue, now they are
pending to be pushed by the maintainers
I'm yet pending to prepare a list of "to be promoted packages". My
intention is to gather all the information about status, maintainers and
TMO related threads, and try to contact the developers to promote their
packages. After that, all non promoted packages could be pushed by the a
temporary new maintainer designed by the Council if they don't present any
But I have had a very busy week, hopefully I could do something more next
2012/4/27 robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Timo Härkönen <timop.harkonen [at] gmail>wrote:
>> 27. huhtikuuta 2012 12.12 Neal H. Walfield <neal [at] walfield> kirjoitti:
>> At Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:06:59 -0400,
>>> robert bauer wrote:
>>> > I became aware that packages were stuck and addressed the qa/promotion
>>> > process a couple months ago -
>>> Can you please summarize how you addressed this? I started this
>>> discussion by suggesting that we lower the karma threshold at which a
>>> package is promoted, but whatever you've done hasn't effect (at least)
>>> one of my packages, which has three thumbs up, two from "testers:"
>> I wouldn't say the problem is fixed. There's been some proposals on how
>> to resolve it but afaik not action yet. Although the tresholds for requires
>> votes were lowered to iirc 3 votes from testers or 6 otherwise. The main
>> problem still is not enough people doing testing. The discussion needs to
>> be resuccerted. I would keep the discussion here and not have in the
>> testing squad list since this is not only a tester thing.
>> A bit hard package to test. It isn't very clear how to actually use it.
>> so I'd guess that's why it hasn't been tested by that many. Anyway, I tried
>> it and seems there's a missing dependency in the package since
>> apt-woodchuck command raises a missing import exception (gconf) so I just
>> voted it down.
>> The threshold was lowered so that a single thumbs up from a supertester
> and no thumbs down is enough to promote a package. Here is my email on
> From Timo's comment, there is some confusion which I hope this now helps
> with. There is of course the problem that there is a long list of packages
> so it will take time. I expect another problem is that the new threshold
> may have to be retroactively applied in the case of this package.
> In any event, once Timo's issue is addressed, he can change his vote and
> the package should be promoted.
> maemo-community mailing list
> maemo-community [at] maemo
Iván Gálvez Junquera