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

Re: Work-needing packages report for Dec 9, 2011

Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:

> I've always (well, since they were introduced) thought about the RFH
> bugs as either «we're now starting a team effort to fix up $package,
> please come and help» and more commonly: «I'm stuck maintaining this
> package with a mostly nonexistent/dysfunctional team, if somebody else
> who uses this would like to chip in, it'd be great».  So, a way to
> highlight sore spots and get attention.

> A «please help me» bug that's been open for an average of almost three
> years isn't getting attention, nor highlighting anything.

My first inclination would be to publish a clear definition like that
somewhere and then auto-close RFH bugs after three months.  After three
months, the team has either formed or not, and the dysfunctional team has
either gotten fixed or one should consider escalating to RFA.  The
maintainer can always reopen if they think they'll have more luck asking
for help the second time around.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: