Re: old ITP's

[David Schleef <ds@schleef.org>]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 08:30:13PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> At te moment, there are a lot of old ITP's hanging around in the WNPP,
> with (seemingly) nothing happening to them.  In order to clean out the
> WNPP, I intend to rename the ITP's that have been open longer than 1 year
> to RFP's.  This will affect approximately 200 ITP's.

Why is this necessary?  Keep in mind that a lot of ITPs are
actually packaged and are either in experimental or an upstream
repository, or upstream has requested that the packager hold
off until the project stabilizes.

In addition, wnpp keeps track of packages that cannot be packaged
because of licensing issues, and the bug generally is a repository
for reasons why it can't be packaged.  Perhaps it would be wise to
change these to "CBP - can't be packaged".

> Below's a list of the bug tahtw will be renamed. The "filed" and
> "changed" fields in the list are the number of days that have past since
> the bug was opened, and since any addition  was made to the report,
> respectively.

Your "changed" field appears to be incorrect for a large number of
packages.

>   #87667 gstreamer                            filed:  546, changed  546

As an example, this package was uploaded to experimental on friday,
and has been packaged upstream for about a year.  It was last changed
62 days ago.

Please do not off-load the work of fixing up the problems caused
by mass-changing wnpp bugs to others.  I can't see how one can do
this kind of task productively without hand sorting each bug.



dave...