Hoi,
When a project uses a macro language code, the language is not eligible.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 2 April 2018 at 22:23, Steven White <[email protected]> wrote:
> Were you intending your question (about activity) to be a reply to this
> (third set), or to fourth set, where I did make an activity argument?
>
>
> The only extent to which activity is an argument is that we have been
> closing requests as *stale *if either:
>
>
> - no test was ever created, or
> - a test only had a couple of pages created, and those pages were
> created around the same time the RFL request was made—but the test has been
> completely dormant since
>
>
> Until I got up to the request for Wikipedia Tharu, all of these
> old requests either had
>
>
> - no meaningful activity later than a month or two after the request
> was made, or
> - plenty of meaningful activity after the request was made.
>
>
> So they were easy to decide. For Wikipedia Tharu, the test was dormant
> until a year ago. But since there was recent activity, I went ahead and
> said "eligible".
>
>
> Is that a problem? I'd rather mark tests as eligible if possible. I'm
> marking tests as "rejected-stale" only if they would otherwise be "on hold"
> indefinitely. We decided a couple of months back that it was better in
> those cases to close the requests, with an invitation for a new one if a
> community reappeared.
>
>
> Steven
>
>
> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
