On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:28:11 +0200 Sven Lankes <sven@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:28:42PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > >> I think we should add some policy to address those unmaintained > >> packages, > > > There is the non-responsive maintainer policy already. > > That policy isn't the easiest one to follow though. I understand that > taking someones packages away should never be easy but maybe we could > develop some metrics for the awolness of a maintainer and use that to > possibly speed up the process. I would love a better policy. It's hard to balance tho... between someone who is just busy and someone who is really missing. ;( I think one thing that would help is perhaps to form a group that looks for these people (possibly using what you are talking about below), tries to contact them and if that fails marks them as missing. > > I know that seth worked on something similar based on commit > frequency. What I could think of is: > > * Look at the FAS activity > > If a maintainer has multiple request for commit rights to his > package which have not been answered in a long time that would > increase his awolness counter. > > (This would mean that we need to encourage people to actually deny > requests that they don't want to approve - currently it seems to be > accepted that denying a request is rude and the more polite way to > not approve a commit request is to just ignore it). I'm not sure just not acting on a request there is a sign of awol. They could just be waiting for the person to prove themselves, or some other reason. But if there is no pkgdb activity at all, I think thats an indicator perhaps. > * Check if he actually has a current certificate to interface with > koji Good idea. > * Look at koji activity Yep. > If a maintainer hasn't done any build in koji for three months or > more that would increase his awolness counter. yeah, or any git commits, etc. > The awolness-counter would only be looked at when someone thinks about > starting the awol procedure and it could be used to speed up the > process Should we wait until someone starts the process? Wouldn't it be better to look at all the people over a X value here and at least contact them. Are you alive and still willing to be a maintainer? If you don't have time perhaps hand off your packages? Thanks? > - maybe get an non-responsive Maintainer procedure done in one week > instead of four or five. Yeah, added with all the info above and other stuff we can gather. People do go away for weeks at a time and are just on vacation, etc. > I know that there is the "Fast Track procedure" but that is for when > "it may be needed to reassign a package quickly". When I was bit by > gdal being in FTBFS for too long (and with it merkaartor which I > maintain) I commented on the bugs and waited a while. When that > didn't do anything I email Christian and also started work on a fixed > package which rsc then built for rawhide using his provenpackager > powers. That is a downside to provenpackagers. "Hey would you fix this thing for me" "ok". Then we don't know that anyone is maintaining it. > I could have stopped there (and I nearly had done that) without > starting the policy procedure - just because the process requires the > one interested in getting things fix to do five or six things each a > week apart. And looking at the number of "awaitaing review" > maintainers there have been a few people before me who wanted to help > get things fixed ... Yeah, but then we don't really have a maintainer answering bug reports, etc. > > It can't be repeated often enough: We need maintainers for each and > > every package in the collection. To have packages and bug reports > > assigned to an inactive person A with provenpackager B doing random > > upgrades from time to time is a broken system. B ought to become > > the maintainer instead. And C and D and E in the community also > > ought to consider joining the package's team of maintainers, too. > > I agree. But we also need to make it easier for people to do so - if > you look at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gdal > (which is one of rezsos packages), it has 6 users with "Awaiting > Review" on commit rights. It's not that people don't want to help out > but we're making it too hard for them to do so. Yep. I would love a more comprehensive policy being proposed to fesco. Write one up? ;) kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
