[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: WNPP bug overview

On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 03:53:03PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Aren't ITP's supposed to be wishlist, too? 

Ah, sorry, I was getting ITA and ITP confused.

It'd be nice if there was some reasonable way for wnpp's "bugs" to be
reduced regularly. From what I can see, there are three sorts of entry
that're non-wishlist bugs: O, RFA and ITA. It looks like ITA and O will
be regularly handled this way, which just leaves RFA. Hmm. Should RFA
really be a wishlist bug?

Possibly ITP's should also be severity normal (matching ITA), and
automatically dropped back to RFP's regularly?

Would that make sense?

> > months seems kind of long to upload an ITP-ed package (says someone who
> > spent over a year between submitting an ITP and uploading it...), maybe
> > that window should be shortened.
> You might be right. We shouldn't make it too short though. What about
> 6-8 weeks?

Sounds reasonable to me, fwiw.

> The following ITP's will be renamed to RFP's[3]:
>  - 68132: NIST's POSIX validation suite (1638 days old)
>  - 68232: oobr (1638 days old)
>  - 68243: Linux phone (1638 days old)
>  - 68245: MuPAD (1638 days old)
>  - 68256: TinyMUSH (1638 days old)


You might want to consider a 730 (or even 1460) day limit for RFP's.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
    can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
		-- Mike Hoye,
		      see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt

Reply to: