Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over
On Sunday, March 25, 2012 19:20:10, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
> > I don't completly boycott filing ITP bugs. I've filed at least three this
> > decade; two for packages I could not immediatly upload due to a
> > copyright issue, and one for a package that had an independent
> > debianization not in the archive. Applying a little common sense to
> > filing ITP bugs will get you a long way toward realizing any possible
> > benefits.
> > The appropriate thing to do when confronted with a months-old ITP
> > for a package with the same content or name as your package is almost
> > certianly to ignore old "intent" and get on with it.
> But this goes to far. ITP specifically exists to state that you are
> working on the package so that others can contact you before they work
> on the same thing. And they make the most sense when the packaging is
> going to take a while.
> Simply ignoring the ITP or hijacking the ITP is just rude.
There's a flip-side to this story, which is what happens when an ITP is filed
and left-for-dead. This then turns into a situation where a prospective new
packager then needs to figure out how to re-assign the ITP to someone else,
(because hijacking an ITP is just rude) before working through debian-mentors
to get a sponsored upload. This isn't simply theoretical, as a package I've
been slowly working on is in this very situation.