| 1 |
On 02/10/11 21:09, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/10/2011 10:01 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I don't exactly see how what you've written is of any relevance to the main |
| 4 |
>> point of this - the original issue was *extremely* simple: whenever maintainer's |
| 5 |
>> (active, inactive, last maintainer, whatever) ACK should be mentioned in the |
| 6 |
>> message that ends up in p.mask -- according to me and Andreas: yes. Look at it |
| 7 |
>> as a kind of 'Signed-Off'. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> it's already ack'd by 185475, 211262, 247268, 276220, 287751, 293501, |
| 10 |
> 298109, 301729, 308801, 311763, 311765, 328691, 340605, 348483, 352506, |
| 11 |
> 237366, and 250054. no futher justification is required. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
No. *None* of those bugs even *mentions* QA, the only thing I see is that peper@ |
| 14 |
really wants to be spanked (possibly with a sledgehammer or something else of |
| 15 |
appropriate size and mass). If Piotr doesn't want to maintain those packages he |
| 16 |
should send out an e-mail that there are a few packages up for grabs, not sit on |
| 17 |
those bugs for >12 months. If we can't get new maintainer (or proxy-maintainer) |
| 18 |
then you're free to kill them. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Anyway: looks like Ryan wants to take a look at those packages. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46 |
| 24 |
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache... |
Archives