On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Re: Paul Wise 2008-03-31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I note that several NMs are both on hold and have an inactive NM. I > > think the NM report should differentiate such NMs from those that are > > just on hold or just have an inactive NM. Not sure what the > > appropriate action is for those who are both on hold and have an > > inactive NM, but I've attached a patch for the NM report script. I > > haven't tested it, but it looks OK to me. > > In an ideal world there shouldn't be any NMs with inactive AMs. At the > moment we use this as a parking area for NMs that did not express to > want to continue at the moment we set the AM inactive, but we should > probably rather soft-reject those, or have some kind of "inactive" > queue. (Rather the former, the latter would probably become some very > dusty attic.) > > Let's see how the cleanup you triggered yields, and if the patch is > still necessary then.
I didn't mail any of the NMs/AMs in the situation where the NM is on hold and has an inactive AM. Should I do so now? There were four or five names in that situation IIRC. BTW, no need to CC, I'm subscribed. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
