Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal

Hi Charles, On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 06:44:53PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > here are some comments. > > - It would be more straight to the point to submit an "Intend To Salvage" > (ITS) and >focus on such takeovers, because merly orphaning the package does not > guarantee >that it wi

Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:27:03AM +0200, Arno Töll wrote: > Hi, > > On 11.10.2012 07:50, Bart Martens wrote: > >> - the submitter of the "intent to orphan" bug must Cc > >> debian-qa@lists.debian.org, and file the bug with severity:serious (this > >> was part of the "criterias" proposal). >

Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:20:36AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 11/10/12 at 05:50 +, Bart Martens wrote: > > And the maintainer does not respond within one month after the the third > > second. > > I'm not sure about this delay. This procedure should be used for > uncontroversial cases,

Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:21:59AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum writes: > > I'm not sure about this delay. This procedure should be used for > > uncontroversial cases, where orphaning is obviously the right choice. > > I strongly agree here. A package that's a salvaging candidate h