On 11/21/2011 09:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Unconvincing. To "reassure ownership" periodicially won't be sufficient. > It would be just another button to click (like FAS password or cert > renewal) and would not guarantee that the packages would be maintained > properly and that tickets would be dealt with. A "sign of life" from a > person does not imply that the person's packages are (well-)maintained. > Well if people want more controversial proposal of sign of live that's relatively easier to accomplish. Revoke that maintainers package privileges for $next-release if he does not respond to bug reports in timely manner in GA releases and orphan his package. Arguable a bit drasting but at the same time far more effective clean up process. >> > I cant image how much resources across the project have been spent on >> > packages that no longer are being actively maintained but have not been >> > removed from the distribution. > Might be true. I agree with your concerns, just not with how you'd > like to tackle the problem.;) I think the "soft" approach will still be more efficient then current implemented solution. The "hard" approach would certainly be the most efficient one and at the same time teach packager/maintainers a thing or two against their responsibility towards the community and least but not least towards our end user base and arguably it might be doing the relevant maintainers a favour as in they have not realised or have not come in terms with the fact that they no longer have the time to maintain their package(s) and that approach would serve as a bit of a wakeup call but as I mention some people might find that a bit of an harsh approach to the problem. I'm all ears for any solutions to the task at hand that you might have up your sleeve. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
