Re: Close old RFP/ITPs?
* Petter Reinholdtsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030707 01:05]: I have several packages which I am interested in getting packaged, but I am neither the requester nor a reader of debian-wnpp. Your assertion is thus wrong in at least one case. I believe it would be a bad idea to close RFPs just because no one responds when you ask for it. I use a script to keep track of the progress of the packages I am missing, and it will not detect new comments in the BTS entry. Be assured, I took the answers here serious, and I will look into each RFP whether it is still usefull before doing the next step (that is sending mail asking for other opinions). 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
Re: Close old RFP/ITPs?
[Andreas Barth] So I think this is fair enough and if neither the original requester nor any reader of debian-wnpp sees need for a package it really doesn't need to be packaged any more. I have several packages which I am interested in getting packaged, but I am neither the requester nor a reader of debian-wnpp. Your assertion is thus wrong in at least one case. I believe it would be a bad idea to close RFPs just because no one responds when you ask for it. I use a script to keep track of the progress of the packages I am missing, and it will not detect new comments in the BTS entry. So, please do not in general close old RFPs unless the package is uploaded into Debian. Some of them should probably be closed as the package is dead upstream and there are better alternatives available, but that is independent of the age of the RFP.
Close old RFP/ITPs?
Hi, is it usefull/ok to close old RFP/ITP-entrys? old means for me more than year since the last mail for ITP, and 2 years for RFP. Of course I would write mail first whether the package is still wanted or if the packaging is still in order, and only close if no answer for a month. Comments? 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
Re: Close old RFP/ITPs?
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:05:55 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is it usefull/ok to close old RFP/ITP-entrys? old means for me more than year since the last mail for ITP, and 2 years for RFP. Of course I would write mail first whether the package is still wanted or if the packaging is still in order, and only close if no answer for a month. I would recommend leaving old RFPs open, and retitling old ITPs to RFP. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
Re: Close old RFP/ITPs?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: is it usefull/ok to close old RFP/ITP-entrys? old means for me more than year since the last mail for ITP, and 2 years for RFP. Of course I would write mail first whether the package is still wanted I do not think old RFPs should be closed, at least on the sole basis that they are old. Even if the submitter is no longer interested, other people may be, and there is no way to know how many they are. A clean-up is probably needed though, for instance #186174 (xyzzy) is a rather silly RFP, it should at most be a wishlist bug for whatever console games package we have. Regards, -- Sam.
Re: Close old RFP/ITPs?
* Sam Hocevar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030705 14:50]: On Sat, Jul 05, 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: is it usefull/ok to close old RFP/ITP-entrys? old means for me more than year since the last mail for ITP, and 2 years for RFP. Of course I would write mail first whether the package is still wanted I do not think old RFPs should be closed, at least on the sole basis that they are old. Even if the submitter is no longer interested, other people may be, and there is no way to know how many they are. A clean-up is probably needed though, for instance #186174 (xyzzy) is a rather silly RFP, it should at most be a wishlist bug for whatever console games package we have. It's much more difficult to make an cleanup on a not formal criterium, and almost impossible for myself. However, if I ask in mail this mail would also be forwarded to debian-wnpp, and any reader there could answers that a package seems usefull and therefore the RFP should not be closed. So I think this is fair enough and if neither the original requester nor any reader of debian-wnpp sees need for a package it really doesn't need to be packaged any more. To Marc: You are right, ITPs should be treated as RFPs in this case and retitled accordingly. 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
