Comment 4 for bug 262614

On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 14:02 +0000, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I was the one who requested your ban, due to the massive amounts of spam
> to our trackers, and the resulting backscatter of email to every
> backports developer (I believe at least 400 emails if not more were
> sent). The resulting influx of now invalid bugs has made the trackers
> you spammed (and it is spam) unusable since we can't easily find valid
> requests among all the garbage, and I've asked LP staff to delete all
> the bugs you filed against our trackers.
>
> It is rude to file so many bugs without discussing it with the project
> administrators, especially if there was a chance if these bugs were
> invalid. Furthermore, there is a VERY clear criteria for what qualifies
> for a backport and what doesn't, and it quite clear that you didn't
> bother to check the page on the proper way to request a backport. I ask
> that you please stop touching any bugs on our trackers; we will close
> these bugs ourselves, and ask that you do not file any backport requests
> until you are clearly familiar with the process. Taking the [needs-
> packaging] bug, and subscribing it to the backports trackers is NOT the
> way to request a backport!
>
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports - Please read this.
>
> ** Changed in: gutsy-backports
> Status: Incomplete => Invalid
>
> ** Changed in: feisty-backports
> Status: Incomplete => Invalid
>
Michael,

Are all of these backport tasks being invalidated? If so, do you want
some help? There's quite a substantial number to go through.

Cheers
Chris