On 25/05/10 at 18:08 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:58:37AM +0200, Xavier Oswald a écrit : > > On 08:44 Tue 25 May , Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 01:37:45PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > > > > > > - I think that it is better to close ITPs instead or retitling them > > > > RFPs, > > > > otherwise we will perhaps accumulate a large number of inactive RFPs. > > > > > > I don't see a problem with that. Quite on the contrary, "loosing" info > > > gathered during a failed packaging attempt could lead to double (wasted) > > > work. So, I'd vote for retitling. > > > > +1 > > Hi again, > > I do not have a strong opinion on the subject (since I never browse the RFP > bugs), but I suggest to take the following threads and messages into account > before making a final decision: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/06/msg00299.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg00587.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/09/msg00014.html
I personally think that RFPs have some value, as they document that at least someone is interested in a package for $software. The problem I'm trying to solve here is about ITPs and ITAs, not RFP. Feel free to start a discussion about how to deal with old RFPs yourself. -- | 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100525170114.ga13...@xanadu.blop.info
