Re: ITP->RFP

["Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org>]

>> "Francesco P. Lovergine" <frankie@debian.org> writes:

 > Just do not do mass modifications without reading contents. Some ITP
 > are dated but recently 'adopted' by others.  I recently
 > closed/renamed some ITPs which are really dated (some years or so)

 Well, to boot I wouldn't mind a few false positives.  Just ping all the
 people involved ("you are receiving this mail because you have
 participated in the discussion relating package foo which is marked as
 being adopted, bug #nnnnn [...]"), and include instructions to close or
 rename the bugs.  Give them a week or so and then mass rename the bugs.
 Once you do that, just generate a list of Bugs Needing Clean-up
 periodically, send it to this list where someone picks it up, he reads
 the comments to your heart's content and does whatever is appropiate.

 Had the BTS a better way to change the submitter, I'd also like to
 shift the submitter of the bug as appropiate (O, RFA => maintainer, ITP
 => submitter, RFP => submitter, ITA => adopter).  In particular I'd
 find going from RFP to ITP a bit confusing with the current method: the
 submitter (probably a user) gets a mail stating the bug has been closed
 and then another one (?) stating it's been reopened.  The O and RFA
 cases aren't that important, the submitter is a developer, he's
 probably used to the BTS's oddities.

-- 
Marcelo             | "It's a god-eat-god world."
mmagallo@debian.org |         -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)