On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:21:59AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes: > > I'm not sure about this delay. This procedure should be used for > > uncontroversial cases, where orphaning is obviously the right choice. > > I strongly agree here. A package that's a salvaging candidate has > already been neglected far too long, requiring another extra month of at > most NMU-maintainance is counter productive.
Yep. See what I wrote about skipping the month delay in obvious cases. > > A maintainer has many ways to signal in advance that he/she will be > unable to answer bug reports or mail for a longer period of time > (including VAC messages on -private, and/or setting a vacation message > in LDAP), many of which can and should be checked as soon as the > salvaging process starts, to make sure there's no accidental overlap. > > With that done, I do not see the point of waiting an extra month. I don't know where to look for such signal for non-DDs. I think that we should still allow one month delay in less obvious cases. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121014085853.gi...@master.debian.org
