On 30/05/10 at 14:07 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Lucas Nussbaum 2010-05-26 <20100526061354.gb9...@xanadu.blop.info> > > > Maybe just reverting to prior state : if RFP before ITP, then revert to > > > RFP, otherwise, if direct ITP, then close ... > > > > That would indeed be the solution that makes the most sense. The problem > > is that "prior state" might be quite hard to determine. > > Don't you need that anyway for determining if an ITA was an O or RFA? > > Re RFPs, inactive RFPs could just be handled the same. (After retitling > from ITP to RFP, close it after N months of inactivity further.)
I currently ignore that problem since all the bugs I have retitled where ITAed for a long time, and it's therefore very much possible that the original maintainer would have stopped caring about the package, since it was supposed to be adopted anyway. Since I don't really plan to reduce the inactivity requirement a lot, I don't think that this will become a too big problem. But patches are welcomed ;) -- | 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/20100530124416.ga8...@xanadu.blop.info
