Re: Splitting ITA into two
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 10:17:59PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 07:54:54PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > This has been discussed before[1], but it'd really be nice to have a
> > distinction between an ITA in response to a RFA, and an ITA in response
> > to an O.
>
> Ok, my first guess was "nice to have", my second one was "but has this
> some real actual advantages?" Are there any?
The most important one (and the only one that made me suggest this) is:
- ITM packages are still orphaned
- ITA packages are still maintained by the old maintainer
This distinction is usually extractable from somewhere in the BTS log of
course, but not automatically. In theory, the distinction is easily made
by looking whether the maintainer is packages@qa.debian.org or not, but
as you know, the maintainance status in the BTS quite often different
from the one in the archive for up to months. It's what
http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html checks, but currently cannot do so
for RFA packages due to this uncertainty.
Also when doing wnpp maintainance (retitling IT? towards RF?), there is
a big difference in importance between ITA and ITM, ITM packages are in
need of a new maintainer or otherwise QA must do it, while ITA packages
are still maintained by the old maintainer, so there is no problem if a
ITA takes a bit.
> I definetly don't like the idea of renaming O without changing its
> definition.
It is indeed a bit weird to change it for purely aestetic reasons,
that's why it's an opional addendum to my suggestion.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: