On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:59:23PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:39:44AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Hi > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:00 AM, wrote: > > > > > Change in ownership over the last 168 hours > > > =========================================== > > > > > > 20 packages were orphaned > > > > > > > It is entirely unclear from this report whether any of the packages in this > > list remain orphaned or have they all been picked up. It would be useful > > to know whether packages that one tends to rely on are getting orphaned. > > e.g > python-selenium was orphaned by halfie and is currently (still?) > owned by halfie. > > The list of orphaned packages can be just a snapshot, as that's in > continuous flux. It's totally non obvious, why a package was orphaned > (by accident, because of upstream is dead, lack of time, ...) There is indeed a significant number of packages listed here which are reported to have been orphaned and yet appears to still be owned by their original owner. We had a small glitch last week on the network so maybe we failed to get some messages (in this case the messages that the owner unorphaned the packages that they had orphaned before). That is the only explanation I can come up with at the moment. [...] Looking with datagrepper, both orphaned and unorphaned action seems to have happened and made it to datagrepper: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/id?id=2014-a6b37016-69a1-4ec1-9b32-fc4c12bc4875&is_raw=true&size=extra-large https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/id?id=2014-ab57aeb0-67d0-432b-86eb-cea621873670&is_raw=true&size=extra-large That's something that the script should have catched (since it relies on datagrepper as source of information). I'll need to look a little more into this Thanks for the heads-up, Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
