Dear Fesco: Orphan package process needs work

[José Matos]

On Wednesday 04 October 2006 19:58, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Call the process whatever you want, the package dropped because of
> inactivity of the maintainer (how is this different from orphaned?)
> without a fair chance for anyone to step up.  If it's not the orphan
> process, I can call it the drop package process or whatever.
>
> In either case, something is broken.  If a package doesn't get a fair
> chance to be picked up before dropped, I'd say that's broken.  Or, if an
> auxiliary process such as mass rebuilding gets free reign to ignore
> other processes, then that is broken.

  I agree with you.

  On the other hand this is the first release where we applied this procedure. 
I am certain that we will learn with our mistakes. After all this is one of 
the phew examples that gave wrong results among more than one thousand 
packages.

  At least this is why I like Extras, we still learning how to proceed, and 
IMHO we are doing very well, as any growth process sometimes there are 
hiccups.

-- 
José Abílio