On Wednesday, June 4, 2025 6:05:25 AM Mountain Standard Time Ahmad Khalifa wrote: > On 04/06/2025 13:50, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote: > > Le 2025-06-04 13:56, Ahmad Khalifa a écrit : > >> Because they're misleading and waste contributor time. > > > > I don't think so, in general. Some RFH are not detailed enough, but many > > are pretty clear about which kind of help is needed. > > I have recent evidence of 2 newcomers complaining about wasting time on > RFH bugs. Do you have recent evidence of anyone benefiting from RFH bugs?
Yes, I recently adopted Courier (and related packages) because it had a RFH bug. > >> They're both useful within a "recent" time span (say 6m or 1y). > >> After that, why keep it and have a long wnpp page that's not useful? > >> Debbugs will have a record of archived ones for future historians. > > > > I strongly disagree with this. Older RFP/ITP are often useful as they > > document prior interest, work and issues encountered while trying to > > package the project. They can also be referenced in blocks: > > relationships with other RFPs or bugs (e.g. request to update a package). > > > > A review process with enough votes to keep or close stale RFPs could be > > interesting, but they should not be closed arbitrarily. > > I say this after working on the 4th oldest open ITP (#412060), it > reduces the visibility of what's important when you have a list of WNPP > bugs that's 4-digits long! No one is browsing through all that. No, but I search through it frequently. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
