Julien Viard de Galbert <julien@vdg.blogsite.org> writes: > First, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (current maintainer) if you have > plans for Wheezy, please tell me so, if not, why don't you fill and > RFH or RFA ? It appears this is the first time you've tried to contact Felipe over this issue. Why are you announcing an Intent To Hijack at the same time? That makes the assumption that you already know the response. > I feel what I'm currently doing is kind of rude […] Yes, because of the above assumption. > My plan is: > - wait a little for response > - prepare a new package of the new version using format 3.0 quilt > - check all patch from previous debian package > - check all patch on the bts > - check all remaining bugs on the bts All of this can be done without announcing an Intent To Hijack. If you keep the BTS in the conversation at each step, then the maintainer has plenty of opportunity during this process to acknowledge your work and forestall the ITH. > - fill an RFS This should go to the current maintainer in the first instance, until you know that they're inactive on the package. -- \ “My, your, his, hers, ours, theirs, its. I'm, you're, he's, | `\ she's, we're, they're, it's.” —anonymous, alt.sysadmin.recovery | _o__) | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpn5NIs2C4gD.pgp
Description: PGP signature