>> "Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just do not do mass modifications without reading contents. Some ITP
> are dated but recently 'adopted' by others. I recently
> closed/renamed some ITPs which are really dated (some years or so)
Well, to boot I wouldn't mind a few false positives. Just ping all the
people involved ("you are receiving this mail because you have
participated in the discussion relating package foo which is marked as
being adopted, bug #nnnnn [...]"), and include instructions to close or
rename the bugs. Give them a week or so and then mass rename the bugs.
Once you do that, just generate a list of Bugs Needing Clean-up
periodically, send it to this list where someone picks it up, he reads
the comments to your heart's content and does whatever is appropiate.
Had the BTS a better way to change the submitter, I'd also like to
shift the submitter of the bug as appropiate (O, RFA => maintainer, ITP
=> submitter, RFP => submitter, ITA => adopter). In particular I'd
find going from RFP to ITP a bit confusing with the current method: the
submitter (probably a user) gets a mail stating the bug has been closed
and then another one (?) stating it's been reopened. The O and RFA
cases aren't that important, the submitter is a developer, he's
probably used to the BTS's oddities.
--
Marcelo | "It's a god-eat-god world."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
