On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 03:53:03PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > Aren't ITP's supposed to be wishlist, too?
Ah, sorry, I was getting ITA and ITP confused. It'd be nice if there was some reasonable way for wnpp's "bugs" to be reduced regularly. From what I can see, there are three sorts of entry that're non-wishlist bugs: O, RFA and ITA. It looks like ITA and O will be regularly handled this way, which just leaves RFA. Hmm. Should RFA really be a wishlist bug? Possibly ITP's should also be severity normal (matching ITA), and automatically dropped back to RFP's regularly? Would that make sense? > > months seems kind of long to upload an ITP-ed package (says someone who > > spent over a year between submitting an ITP and uploading it...), maybe > > that window should be shortened. > You might be right. We shouldn't make it too short though. What about > 6-8 weeks? Sounds reasonable to me, fwiw. > The following ITP's will be renamed to RFP's[3]: > - 68132: NIST's POSIX validation suite (1638 days old) > - 68232: oobr (1638 days old) > - 68243: Linux phone (1638 days old) > - 68245: MuPAD (1638 days old) > - 68256: TinyMUSH (1638 days old) Heh. You might want to consider a 730 (or even 1460) day limit for RFP's. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue." -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
