Re: retitling old ITA/ITP bugs to O/RFP
On 25/05/10 at 18:08 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:58:37AM +0200, Xavier Oswald a écrit :
> > On 08:44 Tue 25 May , Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 01:37:45PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - I think that it is better to close ITPs instead or retitling them RFPs,
> > > > otherwise we will perhaps accumulate a large number of inactive RFPs.
> > >
> > > I don't see a problem with that. Quite on the contrary, "loosing" info
> > > gathered during a failed packaging attempt could lead to double (wasted)
> > > work. So, I'd vote for retitling.
> >
> > +1
>
> Hi again,
>
> I do not have a strong opinion on the subject (since I never browse the RFP
> bugs), but I suggest to take the following threads and messages into account
> before making a final decision:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/06/msg00299.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg00587.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/09/msg00014.html
I personally think that RFPs have some value, as they document that at
least someone is interested in a package for $software. The problem I'm
trying to solve here is about ITPs and ITAs, not RFP. Feel free to start
a discussion about how to deal with old RFPs yourself.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: