On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:00:29AM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > 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. I looked into the build history of our package collection recently, more specially trying to find the date of the last successful build of all our packages using datagrepper. I presented the output in: http://blog.pingoured.fr/index.php?post/2013/12/17/Fedora-build-history There is a rather small list that might be something to look into first: 66 packages have not been sucessfully re-built for 200 days or more Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
