On 01/16/2010 03:50 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> With nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug >> reports having been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And >> worse if it turns out that packages which do build are unmaintained >> nevertheless, with the same symptoms in bugzilla and in package scm. > > We could easily create a new class of bugzilla ticket, say > "MAINTAINED". An automated process would generate such tickets, > blocking F13MAINTAINED. The ticket would ask the maintainer to close > the ticket to remain the owner of the package. Tickets still open > after $SOMEDELAY would be candidates for orphan or non-responsive > maintainer process. Repeat at $SOMEINTERVAL, perhaps once per release > cycle (more would be too onerous I think). > > With a slight modification, my ftbfs bugzilla script could generate > the tickets. > > Thoughts? I don't like this idea, because I don't see how this is would be essentially different from the AWOL process. The only difference would be, with proposal non-reponsive maintainer would be urged to "take action on one package otherwise you'll loose ownership on this package" vs. "take action on one or package, otherwise you'll loose ownershp on all packages" as with the AWOL process. That said, I seriously think, * non-responsive maintainers should be confronted with an AWOL-process in all cases of non-responsiveness. They always have the opportunity to "take action". * we might need a better, formalized AWOL process. Also consider that FTBS breakdowns only are one situation amongst many similar situations of "non-responsive maintainers" - I don't see any need to special case FTBS. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
