Le Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli écrivait: > It's not bad, is an hack. Fullfill our need but isn't the right place.
It's a smart hack. As is the "ftp.debian.org" or "lists.debian.org" pseudo-package ... > This has also a drawback: reconstructing history of threads between > applicant and sponser will sooner become a pain. Huh ? Those mails were never public before ... all information about a package in a single bug, I find it quite convenient to see the evolution of the sponsored package. > Is currently a pain also to crawl in bug report pages for package with > an huge number of reported bug. Yes, that's exactly why it's a bad idea to integrate it in the wnpp pseudo-package. > Maybe you can provide some access statistics for the original CGI > sponsorhip pages ... I have no access statistics as it's not my machine. But it's not relevant information anyway. > How many bugs (and related thread) you think such a page can have? The current CGI lists a total of 80 sponsoree. 20 of them currently have a sponsor. I guess that we can easily have 60 bugs in the "looking for a sponsor" list and 60 more in the "currently sponsored" list. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
