On 08/02/2010 01:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:31:22 +0100, James wrote: > >> Remember that some packages get very little activity because they need >> very little. > > And these are not a problem at all. > >> Increasing someone's AWOLness counter because they didn't for example, >> update ed is just plain silly. > > [snipped the rest here] > > Uh, come on, ... that's not helpful. There are ideas how to detect absent > maintainers early by collecting and *combining* information available in > the Fedora intrastructure. Not by having a single old stable pkg trigger > an AWOL alarm. > [snip] Really? So imagine this scenario. Packager foo has two packages, bar and baz. bar is a package much like ed, which needs very little attention, and goes for a year without anything needing doing to it, no koji activity happens. This increases the hidden little "AWOLness" counter. foo then goes on holiday for a week, and forgets to mention this on his fp.o page. A bug is found in package baz. Bug reports are filed - users are impatient. It's noticed that foo has a very high AWOLness counter due to foo's other package. He is surprised to learn that he's been declared AWOL and had his packages removed when he returns from holiday. As I read the initial proposal, this is entirely plausible. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
