Package: reportbug
Version: 6.4.4
Tags: patch
Dear wonderful maintainers,
On #debian-mentors the other day, I learned that there's a consensus that
RFA is not merely a less-urgent version of O, but that in an RFA, the
package maintainer retains the right to decide their successor and the
package isn't up for immediate adoption by anyone who wants. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2012/09/msg00055.html
for some discussion.
I think I'd gotten the impression that RFA and O were equivalent except
for urgency from the WNPP website
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
which, in part, quotes reportbug's output:
2 O The package has been `Orphaned'. It needs a new maintainer as
soon as possible.
3 RFA This is a `Request for Adoption'. Due to lack of time,
resources, interest or something similar, the current
maintainer is asking for someone else to maintain this
package. They will maintain it in the meantime, but perhaps
not in the best possible way. In short: the package needs a
new maintainer.
This description, especially the last sentence, doesn't make the
distinction clear. Can the text be rephrased to clarify that RFA is about
soliciting volunteers, and not an open call for anyone to take over the
package like O?
Attached is a patch that rephrases both of these descriptions to make the
difference a little more distinct. In particular, it clarifies that the
maintainer remains with RFA but not O, adds the word "prospective" before
"new maintainer" in the RFA description, and drops the "In short"
sentence. If you have alternate phrasing that you prefer, I'd be happy
with that too.
I'll also follow up with a patch to the website to incorporate the text
you decide on including, and also explicitly state that the appropriate
response to an RFA is to contact the maintainer, instead of unilaterally
retitling to ITA as the page currently suggests. (If you're planning on
taking my phrasing, it'd be great if you could ack my patch promptly even
if you don't commit it immediately, so I can use that phrasing in my patch
to update the website.)
Thanks,
--
Geoffrey Thomas
http://ldpreload.com
geo...@ldpreload.com
From 1300e055aa81f394be3406cd05989127835b32b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Geoffrey Thomas <geo...@ldpreload.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:40:02 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Update wnpp text to clarify distinction between RFA and O
---
reportbug/debbugs.py | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/reportbug/debbugs.py b/reportbug/debbugs.py
index 257ab10..ca988fc 100644
--- a/reportbug/debbugs.py
+++ b/reportbug/debbugs.py
@@ -591,9 +591,9 @@ def handle_wnpp(package, bts, ui, fromaddr, timeout, online=True, http_proxy=Non
'a bug in an existing package, please press Enter to '
'exit reportbug.)', {
'O' :
- "The package has been `Orphaned'. It needs a new maintainer as soon as possible.",
+ "The package has been `Orphaned', and no longer has a maintainer. It needs a new maintainer as soon as possible, and anyone interested is welcome to pick up the package.",
'RFA' :
- "This is a `Request for Adoption'. Due to lack of time, resources, interest or something similar, the current maintainer is asking for someone else to maintain this package. They will maintain it in the meantime, but perhaps not in the best possible way. In short: the package needs a new maintainer.",
+ "This is a `Request for Adoption'. The current maintainer is looking for a prospective new maintainer to transfer maintenance to. Until then, they will continue to maintain the package, but may not have the time, resources, or interest to maintain the package as well as possible.",
'RFH' :
"This is a `Request For Help'. The current maintainer wants to continue to maintain this package, but they needs some help to do this, because their time is limited or the package is quite big and needs several maintainers.",
'ITP' :
--
1.7.10.4
