On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 10:05 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As one of the (ex-)?dev-ref maintainers, I was also asked to comment by
> Raphael.
>
> Generally, I think that the patch goes in the right direction.
>
> I'd like to suggest changes to the last paragraph, though:
> Lack of attention to RC bugs is often interpreted by the QA team as a sign
> that the maintainer has disappeared without properly orphaning his package.
> -Don't be surprised if the MIA team enters in action and ends up orphaning
> -your packages (see <xref linkend="mia-qa" />). But you should really avoid
> -that situation in the first place and ensure that your packages get the attention
> -that they deserve.
> +The MIA team might enter in action, which could end up in your packages being
> +orphaned (see <xref linkend="mia-qa" />).
>
> (I find the last sentence useless as is.)
The phrase "enter in action" sounds really weird. Is it supposed to
mean something like "also get involved", so perhaps more correct wording
might be:
+The MIA team might also get involved, which could result in your
+packages being orphaned (see <xref linkend="mia-qa" />).
Also, is it true that the MIA team would orphan all of your packages in
this case, or just the one that had the unattended RC bug? If it would
just be the one then we should say that.
Regards,
Andrew.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com +64(272)DEBIAN
I like being single. I'm always there when I need me.
-- Art Leo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part