I claimed qgis
Michel Alexandre Salim
michael.silvanus at gmail.com
Sun Jul 4 07:40:38 UTC 2010
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:21:22 +0200,
> Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote:
>> The added complication is that the criterion is when the package was last
>> touched before being orphaned (and some people say it should be when it was
>> last touched by the maintainer, which is even longer ago in qgis's case),
>> not when the ownership was released.
> Well there seem to be exceptions to that. Packages often go 3 months without
> updates, yet (at least informally) people orphan packages briefly to hand
> them over to other people without this being checked. Presumably there is
> an exception for orderly handovers where packages are only in orphan status
> for a short amount of time.
The re-review rule does seem to be oddly worded. If a very stable
package, like FLAC, where the last rebuild took place during F-12,
were to be orphaned, would it automatically need re-reviewing? Or do
we assume what's intended is "unless the last CVS operation was 3
months or more *since the orphaning* ?
More information about the devel