On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 12:21:20 PM Gergely Nagy wrote: > This largely depends on which ITP bug we're talking about, as there > might be good reasons the ITP is still pending. Without more > information, though, no reasonable suggestion can be made, in my > opinion. Its about php-pecl-http and bug #606117. I didn't want to expose the bug publicly in fear of giving the impression of hijacking the package, but here it goes :) On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 12:37:17 PM Guido van Steen wrote: > You could also offer to co-maintain... I did offer to co-maintain. I will however give the author another week or two and try another email in a week or so. On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 12:36:49 PM Arno Töll wrote: > However, given that there was no visible activity for the past 6 months > and the owner is still not responding (say, for a reasonable time frame > after you asked him - don't forget do send a copy to the bug report > itself), you may safely take over the ITP. The only activity is reclaiming the bug and changing it to ITP again. Thanks for your thoughts on that, in any case, so far! greetings, Mati -- me on twitter: @mathiasertl | soup: http://soup.er.tl I only read plain-text mail! I prefer signed/encrypted mail!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.