Re: WNPP cleanup procedures
Andreas Barth <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
By RFP you mean ITA?
I think six months and a year is a really long time; the idea I have
in mind is that after say a month it is reasonable to ask: how are
things going? can we help?
I favor solutions which are faster, but which ask whether things are
going ok, than solutions which are slower and can be done without
> > 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.)
Well, perhaps we could change RFA/ITA to RFT/ITT, which would mean
"Request for Transfer" and "Intent to Transfer"?