[maemo-community] stuck packages fixed?

[From: Timo Härkönen]

Hi

27. huhtikuuta 2012 13.37 Iván Gálvez Junquera <ivgalvez at gmail.com>kirjoitti:

> 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
> problem.
>
> But I have had a very busy week, hopefully I could do something more next
> week.
>

I'm planning a similar effort but currently very busy implementing the
devaamo summit hacking challenge and such things. Anyway once you have the
list ready I can also go through it based on your findings.

-Timo


>
> Regards.
>
> 2012/4/27 robert bauer <nybauer at gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Timo Härkönen <timop.harkonen at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> 27. huhtikuuta 2012 12.12 Neal H. Walfield <neal at walfield.org>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://maemo.org/packages/package_instance/view/fremantle_extras-testing_free_armel/apt-woodchuck/0.4~20111203/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 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
>> that:
>>
>>
>> https://garage.maemo.org/pipermail/testingsquad-list/2012-March/000169.html
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> maemo-community mailing list
>> maemo-community at maemo.org
>> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Iván Gálvez Junquera
>
> _______________________________________________
> maemo-community mailing list
> maemo-community at maemo.org
> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/attachments/20120427/08b3a9e6/attachment.htm>