From: Andrew Schulman <schulman.andrew@epamail.epa.gov>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: gold star requests
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:04:45 -0400
Message-ID: <b4ip55d5gf3ahn81e58bq25ovrdeedsnub@4ax.com>
References: <20090714042020.GA5598@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090714075102.GA27613@calimero.vinschen.de> <0e5p551f49hl847umh3himcnclnp725h4k@4ax.com> <4A5CC40E.6080809@etr-usa.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A5CC40E.6080809@etr-usa.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

> > All back-ordered gold stars should also now have been awarded.
>=20
> You might look at old ITA messages, too.  I'm sorta owed some for=20
> adopting orphaned packages.  I don't know that I really deserve them,=20
> since I don't release new versions very often, but maybe others who=20
> actually do put a lot of time into their packages are missing stars.

OK, I'll look back at ITAs as I have time.  Igor's last update was in Dec.
2007 so I'd only have to look back that far.

In general I look to CV and CGF for gold star requests.  Adopting an
orphaned package should generally be good for one, but if there's a
judgment involved about how active someone is being at maintaining a
package they adopted... that's starting to turn into a research project for
me.  Maintaining HTML file filled with archaic tags and constructions: OK,
no problem.  Researching people's package maintenance histories:  no,
thanks.

> Also, I don't see why stars expire.  Long service shouldn't be discounted.

Yeah, good point.  I agree, we should take that part out, if there are no
objections.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple