On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:21:22 +0200,
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)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* ?
--
Michel