On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800 > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts: > > a) an automated/scriptable part. > > In this part the script uses cold hard facts to look for possible > packages that are unloved or package maintainers that are not active. > There's tons of data we have now with fedmsg. Sadly, we don't have > bugzilla in fedmsg, but we could scrape it directly. > it generates a list that feeds to the next part. > > b) The generated list is examined by humans and action taken. > > Some things that are the list will be false positives. Try and adjust > the script to not generate them. > > As a bonus, the script could also possibly try and figure out components > that 'need help'...ie, lots of unanswered bugs or something. Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open bugs would be quite useful. Packages with bug-years above 50 or so would be good candidates for inspection. > If someone wants to write up a concrete proposal around this, I think > that would be great. +1 Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
