Am Donnerstag, den 16.02.2006, 17:27 +0100 schrieb Christian.Iseli@xxxxxxxx: > Here's the weekly status. > Again: Thanks for you great work Christian. > I had a quick email exchange with Jef and I agreed > to add some stats about CVS repo and open bugs. I unexpectedly found some > time to look into it and added some lines to the report. > >FE Package Status of Feb 16, 2006 > > The full report can be found here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageStatus > Quite long now. That's a bit problematic afaics. I really would like to have the important stuff more highlighted. For example, the stuff that really needs fixing (or at least needs a explanation why it's broken) should also be sent to the list IMHO. Or maybe directly to the E-Mail addresses listed. Maybe both. I mean the following sections: - "Packages not present in the development repo" -- There are a lot of good reasons why this is the case. We maintain http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackagesNoLongerInDevel for those. But a lot of those that are still in the report look a bit suspect -- maybe some are orphaned in fact? For example qemu -- dwmw2 probably has other things to do and forgot about it. He needs to be poked. And I'm optimistic that someone else is interested in it and would like to take over ownership of it in case dwmw2 lost interest. - "Packages missing in owners.list" -- I send a mail out on that ropic an hour ago. If all owners react we should get rid of those soon. - "Orphaned packages present in the development repo" -- They normally should be removed IMHO. Might be a bit to late for FE5, but I still think we have enough time (BTW, why are they still there? We agreed in one of the past FESCo meeting that they should be removed *before* the mass rebuild) There are some other sections like - "Packages that have not yet completed review", - "Potential problems: 'We have X accepted, closed packages where I'm unable to find the package in the development repo' and 'We have 8 accepted, closed packages where I'm unable to find the package in the owners file'" - "Some cleanup needed" - ...and maybe some other sections, too Those should be trivial to fix for the owners. They just needed to be poked by someone -- in an ideal world the script would do that directly. Christian, would that be possible? CU thl -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
