----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 9:20:05 PM > Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process > > On 11/02/2012 06:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > Wrong. Do you know how few of the problems we see in Eclipse land > > don't need fixes upstreams? And some of these issues require > > man/months (years sometimes) upstream before there is smth to show > > in Fedora. Don't make your assumptions based on that. So if one > > logs in every few months to take a look at the number of bugs > > (nothing more) he is active but one that does fixes upstream for > > months before putting into Fedora is not. You see there is no > > black and white here! > > Then that individual would simply log in or perform some other action > to > get him off that list... > > > Plus, did you intentionally skipped the part about being active on > > A but not on B ? So if one does a good job of maintaining 9 > > packages but doesn't do it for 1 because he/she is overloaded we > > should dump him? And please don't tell me that a good maintainer > > would not do that because many of us don't know the count(not the > > names) of the things they are responsible for so it's more than > > easier for a component to goes unnoticed. > > No I simply assumed that he would have logged in to fiddle with one > or > more packages he owns and or is responsible for which would clearly > mark > him *active*. > > I know my English sucks on a good day but i thought it was clear I > was > speaking of checking logins in our infrastructure not *packages* or > number of packages* maintainer might maintain since that's totally > irrelevant and just brings unnecessary complication to the equation > from > my pov... > > Instead of people constant bringing up hypothetical solution while we > have plethora of unmaintained rotten packages in our repos why dont > you > try to come up with or propose an alternative solution to the problem > at > hand... I already wrote it: All of this was to show that whatever policy might be chosen it should be PER PROJECT/PACKAGE not per maintainer. The whole idea of non-responsive maintainer is nonsense. A person that does one thing in a year is still more valuable than a hundred of freeloaders - because he/she actually did one thing. We ship packages so every action should be per package and not per person! Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team > > JBG > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
