On 04/06/2025 22:58, Soren Stoutner wrote:
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.
Looks like you took over maintainership completely. Not that you
provided help and collaborated with the original maintainer.
This looks more like a package that should have been orphaned long ago
when it was removed from testing. The RFH just helped you stumble upon it.
Anyway, no spring cleaning of bugs seems necessary.
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.
--
Regards,
Ahmad
