Re: Is RFP useful anymore?
ti, 2005-06-28 kello 01:55 -0700, Don Armstrong kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Lars Wirzenius <liw@iki.fi> [2005.06.28.0819 +0200]:
> > > Does anyone oppose the 365 day maximum age for RFP bugs?
> >
> > I would say we should drop a line to -submitter in each case and ask
> > for (a) updates, and (b) whether they still want the RFP. Those who
> > say no or don't respond are sure candidates for removal (or +wontfix
> > plus a filter on the website).
>
> I'd suggest sending a message to -done for RFPs that haven't seen any
> activity in > 1 year with specific instructions on how to reopen the
> bug if they are still interested in having the package packaged.
>
> That way the bugs can be closed with minimal effort, and the submitter
> can indicate that they still want the software packaged with minimal
> effort.
The discussion on this has been quiet for a couple of weeks now, and I
think what Don suggested above is the consensus, and also sensible.
Therefore, it is time to start closing RFP bugs that haven't had any
activity within the last 365 days.
Is it possible to find such bugs automatically rather than by processing
them by hand? Some kind of magic using the LDAP interface to the BTS,
perhaps?
The following is my first draft for the bug closing letter:
This "Request for Package" bug report has been open and without
activity for over 365 days. This unfortunately indicates that no
Debian developer or other volunteer has found the time or
interest in creating such a package. In order to avoid keeping
such request bugs open indefinitely, we close them after 365
days of inactivity. This message closes the bug.
If you still wish for the package to be created, the bug should
be reopened. See http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control for
how to do that or reply to this mail and we will do it for you.
This needs to happen within 28 days of the bug being closed, or
the bug will be archived and then a new RFP bug needs to opened
instead.
Suggestions for improvements are welcome.
Reply to: