On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:27:00 +0100 James Findley <sixy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. - Maintainer is nominated as AWOL. - FESCo (or whatever humans are supposed to) look at this and decide that he's not really awol, he's just away from his computer. > He is surprised to learn that he's been declared AWOL and had his > packages removed when he returns from holiday. I think much more likely would be that if the bug/issue was security or critical, a provenpackager would step in and fix it. If he wasn't back in a few more weeks the packages would be orphaned and passed on to a new maintainer. > As I read the initial proposal, this is entirely plausible. I don't think so. Any process needs to have a human check at the end. We shouldn't automate it fully as there will be false positives. Humans should look at the case and catch stuff like the above. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
