[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Introducing RFH (again) (Was: Re: Are the GRUB packages maintained or orphaned?)

On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:11:25PM +1000, Jason Thomas wrote:
> Hi, grub hasn't been orphaned. It is maintained by a group colaboration
> on the pkg-grub-devel mailing list. I've had little time to work on grub
> lately and all the update-grub stuff has been left upto me.

Isn't this a typical situation to file a RFH[0][1][2] on wnpp? I know, there
is currently not a single RFH filed, but someone must be the first one.
Add X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel to ensure that enough people read it.
If more people did that, it'd be wort the effort to enable all kinds of
QA pages to show nice overviews of packages that are requesting
additional help, most likely in the form of co-maintainers (which is
basically what RFH means most of the time, but not necessarily), just
like is done now for packages that request a full maintainer

Alternatively, or in this case I'd say additionaly, tagging the
appropriate bugs as 'help' might also attract people, and (also
important) make it clear in the bug overview page that the maintainer(s)
won't be able to quickly solve that bug(s) and is looking for additional


[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2003/debian-qa-200308/msg00145.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2003/debian-www-200311/msg00117.html
[2] It isn't completely agreed on which TLA[3] to use, but RFH is quite
    general and would therefore fit most cases, whether there is really
	a request for co-maintainers, or merely some additional help, or bug
	triage, or whatever. By going for RFH, there will probably not be
	need for yet another wnpp tag soon.
[3] Three Letter Acronym, http://wikipedia.org/wiki/TLA
[4] This has apparantly been discussed already numerous times, but as of
    yet without success. However nothing is yet stopping you from filing
	RFH's, and I've put it on my TODO list to do something about this
	(i.e., file wishlist bugs and/or patches against the
	packages.qa.d.o, the wnpp overview pages, etc etc), since for
	already a long time this has been discussed, no-one objected to
	this, rather found it a good idea, but simply the implementation
	step stalled.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)

Reply to: