2 week is a short time imho. It can take some time to contact upstream dev or, like Ronald said, you can be on holiday.
@+ 2009/1/5 Ghost1227 <[email protected]> > Ronald van Haren wrote: > >> On 1/5/09, Loui Chang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 06:06:03PM +0100, Mathias Burén wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Agreed, but two months? Isn't that a bit too long? One month is good >>>> enough >>>> in my opinion. >>>> >>>> >>> A month would be alright. I'd prefer two weeks though. Hah! >>> I'd like to avoid using a cron job to do this. >>> Any ideas or patches for such an implementation are welcome at >>> [email protected] >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> >>> >>> >> You know a typical holiday takes longer than two weeks (well, mine at >> least). So I'm against anything shorter than 1 month, which IMO is >> maybe already a bit short. >> >> There may also be instances that packages are wrongly flagged out of >> date, or packages can't be updated for some reasons. How do you want >> to implement these? >> >> Ronald >> >> >> > I agree that this is generally a good idea, although two weeks does seem a > bit short (especially around the holidays). As for instances where a package > can't be updated, perhaps a new flag could be implemented for these > situations? I've had a few of those situations myself and they can be > frustrating, so I suggest the possible addition of a "pending update" flag > or similar. Something that could give the maintainer the ability to mark a > package in such a way as to notify the community that although the package > is not functional, it is being looked into. Additionally, it could > potentially lock out the ability to flag the package out-of-date to prevent > packages in situations like this from being auto-orphaned if the discussed > auto-orphan idea is implemented. Thoughts? > > -- > Your Fortune... > --------------- > I'm encased in the lining of a pure pork sausage!! > >
