On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:27:00 +0100, James wrote: > 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. I also own at least one such package. > 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. No. The packages won't be removed. That's not the goal. It could be, however, that another contributor becomes a co-maintainer and applies a fix while you are on vacation. And that's a good thing, provided that the fix is fine. You would return from vacation to learn that your precious users have not been interrupted for more than a few days by an unexpected bug. In case it's a show-stopper bug, it could be that a helpful provenpackager jumps in to apply a fix _even without_ any new AWOL-detection procedure (but provenpackagers are not supposed to take care of unmaintained packages). Apart from that, your scenario is overly negative. Sort of a worst-case assumption. It could be that there is a threshold of N bugs that would need to be reached before a script would even consider taking a closer look at some person. More typical are packages, where the packager has dozens of open tickets, which have not been touched at all in several weeks/months. They are in a poor state already before someone notices that the packager seems to be missing. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
