Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:04:23AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > I keep on thinking that we are talking about different packages. If a
> > maintainer is "simply feels that the packages didn't need any attention"
> > these are not packages which are for instance:
> > - lagging *way* behind upstream (regarding time or version number)
> There were some cases in the past where the maintainer did not package
> new upstream version because they had some serious issues (or because
> they only wanted to follow stable releases in cases where stable and
> preview releases were hard to distinguish for a outsider) while someone
> else mistook this for a missing action.
You simply can not mistake this as missing in action if the maintainer
would state this in the bug log and I *expect* a maintainer to exactly
do this in response to such a bug report. If you read my mail closely I
was never talking about closing bugs but responding to bugs.
> > - leaving open bugs simply unanswered (=do not give any reasons
> > for not working on a bug)
> Who of us never put some unimportant bug that would need some longer
> investigating in a row to make sure it is actually not a bug and
> forgot to post a little note of "will look into this later".
Me. It is a question of respect to the bug reporter to at least respond
to the issue.