> At 09:32 AM 6/13/99 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote:
> >Criteria I used were:
> >
> >1) Original *quite* long time to complete
> >2) No check-ins for a period of at least 6 months.
>
> I thought that if no check-in was done in 60 days, the number was
> put back in
> the pool.
One would have thought so, but I guess not.
Here's a prime example:
4369949 60 475.6 223.8 283.8 22-May-98 13:13 23-Feb-98 02:21 dsh21
BamBam
Checked out 2/23/98, last checkin was 5/22/98 (over a year ago) with another
223.8 days to run, 283.8 days until it will expire.
Or this one:
4465127 60 472.3 311.8 371.8 26-Feb-98 09:23 koma
magek072
Checked out 2/26/98, *NEVER* checked in at all, over a YEAR until it will
expire.
There are quite a few like that, so I'm gonna play God and take care of 'em.
:-)
Here's one I just *love*:
4787599 61 376.0 662.0 722.0 02-Jun-98 16:42 andres
We could wait around 2 years to finally get around to testing this obviously
abandoned one, or I'll just do it now.
Aaron
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
