Re: WNPP cleanup procedures
* Thomas Bushnell BSG (tb@becket.net) [040809 11:55]:
> There used to be an established set of procedures for aging stale ITP
> and ITA wnpp entries, and setting them back to O.
I don't really remember that there was one. I did a cleanup of ITP /
RFP about a year ago.
What I did was:
* Going through the list of ITP / RFP, writing mail to each one (after
some review) if I think a status change was adaequate (e.g. like:
"upstream disappeared, so I think the RFP has no use any more).
Also, I tagged all bugs accordingly.
* Posting summaries on d-devel of the status (with a linked web page).
* closing / retitling bugs.
I did take 6 months for an ITP, and one year for a RFP as lower limit
for any action; however, if I saw good reason from the history of a
bug report to not do anything, then I didn't write mail at all.
> Also, a separate question: packages which transitioned from O to ITA
> are still officially orphaned, but we don't track them at
> http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html, right?
AFAICS, yes. We track them however at other places.
> Finally, there seems to be a bug in the WNPP labels, because an ITA
> package could be either orphaned (and about to be adopted), or
> maintained with an RFA (and about to be adopted). Those are very
> different states from a QA standpoint; if it is RFA->ITA then the old
> and new maintainers have collective responsibility; but if it is
> O->ITA, then QA has the responsibility.
Well, yes. But that's just the way it is. ;)
(Do you have two new nice lables? If so, please tell.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: