On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:10:49AM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote: >On 2004-01-19T00:33-0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >) On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:11:27PM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >) >Well, as much as I'd like to see gtypist get out the door, there is one >) >technicality: it requires the help2man package (whose ITP is still >) >pending with 2 votes) in order to build. >) I'll vote for help2man, if it helps. > >The help2man package is now only missing a "good to go" review. > > >I am going to try to make a dent in the backlog of all-but-reviewed packages >sometime this week. However, anyone who would like to see their favorite >proposed packages uploaded can feel free to install the package, do some >sanity checks on the packaging and basic functionality, and try to build the >package from its source package. > >Any reported problems will be held against the package until its proposer >announces a fix (or just says the problems are insignificant; I will >typically trust their judgment). A review including the phrase "good to go" >will remove the last major obstacle to uploading. Once a package has one >"good to go", three votes, and no problems, I will perform a last set of >sanity checks and upload it.
Can we implement a time limit on packages for which feedback has been solicted but for which none is forthcoming? I'd like to start talking about a rule like "If a package review notes a problem and no feedback from the package owner shows up for two weeks, the package will be removed from consideration". cgf