| 1 |
On 3/23/19 9:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Bugzilla-based inactivity? |
| 4 |
> ========================== |
| 5 |
> I've noticed something interesting in Fedora lately. They have a policy |
| 6 |
> that if a package build failure is reported (note: they are reporting |
| 7 |
> them automatically) and the maintainer does not update it from the 'NEW' |
| 8 |
> state, it is automatically orphaned after 8 weeks. Effectively, |
| 9 |
> if the maintainer does not take care (or at least pretends to) |
| 10 |
> of the package, it is orphaned automatically. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I suppose we might be able to look for a similar policy in Gentoo. |
| 13 |
> However, there are two obvious counterarguments. Firstly, this would |
| 14 |
> create 'busywork' that people would be required to do in order to |
| 15 |
> prevent from orphaning their packages. Secondly, a fair number of |
| 16 |
> developers would just do this 'busywork' to every new bug just to avoid |
| 17 |
> the problem, rendering the measure ineffective. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Third: Aren't you afraid this will result in huge load of packages being |
| 22 |
"maintainer-needed", getting users involved with them and creating even |
| 23 |
more workload for proxy-maint devs? Yes, it's still better than the |
| 24 |
current situation, but even now there is still a problem of some PRs |
| 25 |
being left to rot unnoticed :\ |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Anyway I'd like to see some action taken for disbanding inactive 'herds' |
| 29 |
or projects that do not respond to bugs (if there's some easy way to |
| 30 |
measure that?) |
Archives