Re: Wrong handling of pure ITP and pure ITA bug reports by your automatic WNPP script
On 25/08/13 at 11:05 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 ITA: libtie-cache-perl -- perl Tie::Cache - LRU Cache in Memory
> Control: owner -1 Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org>
>
> Hi Lucas,
>
> Your script which automatically changes ITPs into RFPs and ITAs into
> O bugs has an annoying bug:
>
> It even changes bugs which where an ITP initially into RFP, which IMHO
> is quite wrong, and -- as I saw today and even worse -- it changes
> initial ITAs into O without the package ever being orphaned:
> http://bugs.debian.org/696137
Hi,
In that specific case, Deepak wrote:
> Bart,
> How are you ?
>
> Yes I am quite busy with my official work, I will not have time till first
> week of Feb 2013. If you wanted to take over the package please take it.
>
> Else I will orphan the package.
Then Bart ITAed the package, but the package wasn't adopted.
Since Deepak wrote "Else I will orphan the package.", I think that orphaning
the package since the ITA was unsuccessful was the correct decision to make.
Generally, I agree that in the RFA -> ITA for a long time without action, what
to do with those bugs is unclear. I think that generally, we need either:
- a clearly identified maintainer that is supposed to care for the package
- an indication that nobody apparently cares about a particular package
By turning all ITA to O, we tend to underestimate the caring that a package
receives.
By turning previously RFAed packages, that have been ITAed for a long time,
back to RFA, we tend to overestimate the caring that a package receives.
I think that generally, it's better to be on the safe side from the "quality of
Debian" POV, rather than be a on the safe side from the "strict ownership of
packages" POV.
But then that process is slightly flawed, since ITP and ITA should really be
transient states, not states in which packages can end up for 6 months or more.
Lucas
Reply to: