* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040809 11:55]: > There used to be an established set of procedures for aging stale ITP > and ITA wnpp entries, and setting them back to O.
I don't really remember that there was one. I did a cleanup of ITP / RFP about a year ago. What I did was: * Going through the list of ITP / RFP, writing mail to each one (after some review) if I think a status change was adaequate (e.g. like: "upstream disappeared, so I think the RFP has no use any more). Also, I tagged all bugs accordingly. * Posting summaries on d-devel of the status (with a linked web page). * closing / retitling bugs. I did take 6 months for an ITP, and one year for a RFP as lower limit for any action; however, if I saw good reason from the history of a bug report to not do anything, then I didn't write mail at all. > Also, a separate question: packages which transitioned from O to ITA > are still officially orphaned, but we don't track them at > http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html, right? AFAICS, yes. We track them however at other places. > Finally, there seems to be a bug in the WNPP labels, because an ITA > package could be either orphaned (and about to be adopted), or > maintained with an RFA (and about to be adopted). Those are very > different states from a QA standpoint; if it is RFA->ITA then the old > and new maintainers have collective responsibility; but if it is > O->ITA, then QA has the responsibility. Well, yes. But that's just the way it is. ;) (Do you have two new nice lables? If so, please tell.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C