Not quite. It's case by case. We approved "din".
בתאריך יום ג׳, 3 באפר׳ 2018, 07:14, מאת Gerard Meijssen <
> When a project uses a macro language code, the language is not eligible.
> On 2 April 2018 at 22:23, Steven White <koala19...@hotmail.com> 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
>> 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.
>> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom mailing list
Langcom mailing list