On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:52:19 +0100 Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > This has already been discussed a long time ago, and a difficulty was > that for every kind of issue that could trigger MIA, there can be a > reason why the packager hasn't acted. A simple comment in the bug stating that they've received the report, don't have time to work on it, somebody else please fix it would work perfectly. The maintainer or co-maintainer responded, there is a clear expectation set about the work needed to be done, and the detection would not trigger on that particular bug. > > In the wiki the end of the Detection is unclear to me: > > Upon subsequent runs of the script if a maintainer triggers as MIA > a db lookup will be done to determine if the maintainer has already > been contacted, and has been given the allowed allotment of time to > respond. If the allotment has been consumed without response, the > script will kick in to processing mode. > > The wording of the beginning of this part is unclear to me, and even > more unclear is whether a human action is needed or not to declare > somebody MIA. My personal point of view is that the final procedure, > that is a reporter declares on devel list that another packager is MIA > and FESCo accepts seems better to me. The "human" action to avoid being declared MIA is to respond to the bug. If a bug is responded to, the maintainer would not be considered MIA. > > Having automated QA bugs done to detect such MIA maintainer and track > all the packages at once seems good to me, but as a data gathering > process, and maybe to avoid for a real person to have to go through > the first steps of the current MIA policy, but it seems to me that > it is not right if a maintainter may be considered MIA only by > automatic means. Part of the automated process is to post to the mailing list, as well as directly to the maintainer, and to all the co-maintainers for all said maintainer's packages. Responding to the bugs in question would end the MIA declaration process, just as it would should a human send those messages. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
