Re: Reconsider sending ITP bugs to debian-devel: a new list?

[Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>]

Hi,

sorry for the late reply.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 09:36:58PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > But WNPP is problematic on its own: Right now, we have 1586 normal
> > priority open bugs, 4613 wishlist open bugs (what would the difference
> > be? It seems *most* normal are O and RFA, while ITPs, RFPs and such
> > are mostly wishlist... but it's not entirely consistent) between ITA,
> > ITP, O, RFA, RFH. 
> According to https://wnpp.debian.net/ there are 3064 RFP bugs. All of them
> can be safely closed and don't need acting upon.

I tend to disagree.  Sensible ITPs are turned into RFPs.  It might
happen that the discussion is continuing under this bug.  A (not really
good) example is #740601 where I wished I would have CCed all discussion
to this issue that happened with upstream.  There are other examples of
[IR]TPs that can/should be used to collect information about the
licensing which sometimes is a longish process.  So I would like to turn
your "All of them" into "99% of them" - but who is volunteering to pick
the 1% that is worth keeping?

> open bugs.
> There are also 1688 open ITP bugs and those tend to be open for multiple
> years for various reasons. Not sure if bartm's and/or lucas's script which
> moves them to RFPs is still working. If it doesn't then we probably have
> too many ITPs which will never produce a package.

I agree that the ITP->RFP script was helpful to change the status of the
bug and it would be good to check if this keeps on working.

Kind regards

      Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de