On 20/08/09 at 19:45 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 07:44:43PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:13:38PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mike and all, > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 06:45:01PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > Package: wnpp > > > > Severity: normal > > > > > > > > See the great thread about "Sponsorship requirements and copyright > > > > files" on > > > > debian-devel to understand why. > > > > > > > > > > This is now 5 months old and (no surprisingly) nobody adopted iceape, > > > time to ask > > > for removal? > > > > Let's just keep the bug this way, it's currently not really orphaned, > > but in desperate need for hands. > > > > OK :) > But then... rename it to RFH? If it keeps orphaned it will be constantly > appearing > in the radar of the QA team as "too much time orphaned package look at > removal".
Well, having been orphaned for only 5 months, it's not really on anybody's radar ;) But I agree that RFH or RFA would be better. 'O' should not be used for packages that are not really orphaned. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
