Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:21:59AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com> writes:
> > I'm not sure about this delay. This procedure should be used for
> > uncontroversial cases, where orphaning is obviously the right choice.
> I strongly agree here. A package that's a salvaging candidate has
> already been neglected far too long, requiring another extra month of at
> most NMU-maintainance is counter productive.
Yep. See what I wrote about skipping the month delay in obvious cases.
> A maintainer has many ways to signal in advance that he/she will be
> unable to answer bug reports or mail for a longer period of time
> (including VAC messages on -private, and/or setting a vacation message
> in LDAP), many of which can and should be checked as soon as the
> salvaging process starts, to make sure there's no accidental overlap.
> With that done, I do not see the point of waiting an extra month.
I don't know where to look for such signal for non-DDs. I think that we should
still allow one month delay in less obvious cases.