On Sunday, March 25, 2012 19:20:10, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Joey Hess <jo...@debian.org> writes: ... > > I don't completly boycott filing ITP bugs. I've filed at least three this > > decade; two for packages I could not immediatly upload due to a > > copyright issue, and one for a package that had an independent > > debianization not in the archive. Applying a little common sense to > > filing ITP bugs will get you a long way toward realizing any possible > > benefits. > > > > The appropriate thing to do when confronted with a months-old ITP > > for a package with the same content or name as your package is almost > > certianly to ignore old "intent" and get on with it. > > But this goes to far. ITP specifically exists to state that you are > working on the package so that others can contact you before they work > on the same thing. And they make the most sense when the packaging is > going to take a while. > > Simply ignoring the ITP or hijacking the ITP is just rude.
There's a flip-side to this story, which is what happens when an ITP is filed and left-for-dead. This then turns into a situation where a prospective new packager then needs to figure out how to re-assign the ITP to someone else, (because hijacking an ITP is just rude) before working through debian-mentors to get a sponsored upload. This isn't simply theoretical, as a package I've been slowly working on is in this very situation. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203252031.36640.chris.kna...@coredump.us
