Re: couple more



On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 12:01:29AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 00:01, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:55:02PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > gmc? gnorpm? UNMAINTAINED sounds like a better and better resolution :/
> > 
> > I'd rather not move gnorpm to UNMAINTAINED. I do have intentions of
> > getting back to working on it at some point, despite the long period of
> > languishing in "unloved" land.
> > 
> > I read the bug reports from time to time and even fix some of them.
> 
> Ah. When I asked gnome-hackers (or maybe desktop-devel-list)about gnorpm
> (in February? March?) it'd been agreed that it was unmaintained, which
> is why the default maintainer points at unknown bugzilla gnome org  
> 
> (1) should the default maintainer change?

You can point it to me, if you like. Probably a good idea if I know
about the bugs in between the times I go and run my stored query against
bugzilla.

> (2) are there Really Old Versions against which bug reports should be
> closed?

Anything prior to 0.95.2 can be closed there is a "prehistoric"
category for those. I'm really not interested in fixing things that
cannot be verified with something 0.95 or later, since that was when
there was a largish amount of bug fixing in the space of a few months to
get some of the more obvious sillies out of the product.

I last looked at all the bugs about three months ago (there were 21 at
the time). I just checked the list again and I see it's up to 33, so
somebody's still using it. So none of the current bugs can be closed for
reasons of "old age", although some may be dupes. I will read through
them when I get a chance and triage them. There are also going to be a
bunch that are "fixed in CVS", since it's been 18 months or so since the
last release and a bit has happened since then. So I could possibly kill
a few by just releasing what exists (along with releasing a GNOME 2
port).

Man, Luis! Now I feel recalcitrant again. Yet another thing I am meant
to be doing and haven't. :-(

Malcolm

-- 
Why be difficult when, with a little bit of effort, you could be
impossible.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]