On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Rather than making it to be reassigned to something else, > it might be better to retitle it to make it look > > "ITP-uploaded: package - description" > > or > > "Uploaded: package - description" > > and still assigned to wnpp. > > It will make clearer which packages are still in preparation > and which are not (which is not obvious in the current state), > and not make ftp.debian.org overloaded with bugs. I don't really see how retitling is any better than reassigning. As with account creation for New Maintainers, inclusion of an uploaded package with an ITP bug against it is the "final stage" in the realization of the new package. We don't have fully fledged new developers until their accounts are created; we don't have fully fledged new packages until dinstall/katie can pull them into the archive. Also, I don't think ftp.debian.org will be overloaded with open bugs; getting new packages that have been ITP'ed into the archive is just as important a function as removing packages that have been orphaned, and we file bugs for that. Furthermore, as I said, this gives a place for people to post reasons why a package may not be acceptable for inclusion into the archive. Finally, should the ftp.debian.org buglist start to back up, it might serve as a useful barometer telling us that we need to add members to the team. (As they are delegates of the Project Leader, though, it's up to the DPL to make this call, as I understand it.) > But it's one more step to the procedure, and I guess it will add to > the confusion / manual mistakes. That could be a risk. Does it outweigh the benefits? -- G. Branden Robinson | The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux | when they take over a country is to branden@debian.org | outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks
Attachment:
pgpDMNqEOZ8J2.pgp
Description: PGP signature