On 02/10/11 21:09, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 02/10/2011 10:01 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: >> I don't exactly see how what you've written is of any relevance to the main >> point of this - the original issue was *extremely* simple: whenever >> maintainer's >> (active, inactive, last maintainer, whatever) ACK should be mentioned in the >> message that ends up in p.mask -- according to me and Andreas: yes. Look at >> it >> as a kind of 'Signed-Off'. > > it's already ack'd by 185475, 211262, 247268, 276220, 287751, 293501, > 298109, 301729, 308801, 311763, 311765, 328691, 340605, 348483, 352506, > 237366, and 250054. no futher justification is required.
No. *None* of those bugs even *mentions* QA, the only thing I see is that peper@ really wants to be spanked (possibly with a sledgehammer or something else of appropriate size and mass). If Piotr doesn't want to maintain those packages he should send out an e-mail that there are a few packages up for grabs, not sit on those bugs for >12 months. If we can't get new maintainer (or proxy-maintainer) then you're free to kill them. Anyway: looks like Ryan wants to take a look at those packages. -- Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46 desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
