>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:30:56 -0500, Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> said:
Chris> On Jun 07, Christian Kurz wrote: >> (Responding to my proposal:) >> > ``However, if QA Group members make 3 consecutive bugfix >> > uploads, with no action on the part of the maintainer, the >> > package will be marked as orphaned 60 days after the first QA >> > Group bugfix upload, and the 'Maintainer' field of the package >> > will be set to "Debian QA Group <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>".'' >> >> Thanks, this is a very good and IMHO better than the old one. So I >> would recommend using this one instead of the old one. This also >> makes sure that we don't have to many packages where the >> maintainer is MIA but also we don't thread the developers to much >> to work on their packages. Chris> Looking over that paragraph again, I guess it's implied that Chris> if bugfix upload #3 is more than 60 days after bugfix upload Chris> #1, and there has been no intervening action on the part of Chris> the maintainer, it can be orphaned in bugfix upload #3. So Chris> the 60 days is a minimum time period. I guess that makes it Chris> more like: Chris> ``However, if QA Group members make 3 consecutive bugfix Chris> uploads, and the maintainer does not respond with a maintainer Chris> release incorporating the fixes within 60 days of the first QA Chris> Group upload, the package will be marked as orphaned and the Chris> 'Maintainer' field of the package will be set to "Debian QA Chris> Group <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>".'' Remove the "incorporating the fixes" part. The maintainer theoretically should be more familiar with his/her packages and shouldn't be required to include fixes from the QA group that are the wrong thing. Dres -- @James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Blessed Be! @ http://www.ioa.com/~dres | Linux is kewl! @"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
