it's been a while but I still want to comment on this...

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 05:45:56PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > Antoine, this is an example were automatic unclaim might be problematic,
> > as it would have unclaimed pdns/pdns-recursor which is not ideal. (For
> > now, just ment as a data point.)
> I'm not sure it would be that problematic. I think Abhijith could
> (should?) have posted a note in dla-needed.txt summarizing this
> situation or adding a pointer to the above email.

FWIW, I do agree with that now, after some thinking. (No, it didnt take
me two weeks :)

> The idea, anyways, is that worst case the issue gets unclaimed and
> reclaimed by someone else. In the above case, Abhijith specifically
> identified that as a *desirable* outcome, so I'm not sure it's really a
> problem.


> Personally, I believe the general case of unexpected unclaims will be
> the package will be unclaimed and *not* claimed by anyone else. At least
> that's my experience of unclaiming "hard" packages that I couldn't
> finish within a month.

sounds likely indeed. 

I guess we just need to get more used to (semi-)automatic unclaims...!


       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to