On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 08:51 -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:39:54AM +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > > > > For a general call/cry for help for packages with many bugs, I would > > submit an RFH, RFA or O before the number of bugs becomes uncomfortable. > > Of course, this probably won't work for all packages; it's not always so > > simple. > > > I would think that orphaning would be the wrong way to go.
I didn't say that packages with many bugs should be orphaned. :) Obviously a package should be orphaned if it is no longer maintained, and only then. What I meant to say is that the maintainer him/herself should voluntarily "submit an RFH, RFA or O before the number of bugs becomes uncomfortable". > If the > maintainer has some, but perhaps not enough, time to work on it and just > needs help, I think he is more likely to find someone is willing to > pitch in and help get the package shaped up. Yes, that's what I meant with RFH, see above. > Orphaning the package has > the potential to leave things worse off. Orphaning an unmaintained package invites new maintainers to adopt the package. > Now, if the package has sat > untouched for a very long time and accumulated many bugs, that may be > the only option. Yes, I agree with that. So I think that we have +/- the same opinion about when a package should be orphaned. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
