Re: mosh ITP not done, just package name taken over
Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@coredump.us> writes:
> On Sunday, March 25, 2012 19:20:10, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
> -- Chris
Then you send a mail to the ITP CCing the submitter and if he doesn't
respond in a reasonable timeframe you take over.
I never said you couldn't highjack an ITP that is left-for-dead.