On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57:07AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > MIA is also about detecting packages that are de-facto orphaned, not > just about developers. Actually, I think that it's more important > that we work on detecting packages that are badly maintained, rather > than on detecting inactive maintainers. Inactive maintainers do not > make harm by definition.
The two are completely orthogonal. Also, I disagree that inactive
maintainer do no harm; they do harm if you think they are still
feeling responsible for a package while they are not. That's why we
had MIA in the first place. (Beside the obvious security risks of
having their accounts around ..., which was the reason to propose
stuff like WAT in the first place.)
Additionally, I think that automatic detection of inactive DDs can
*help* QA: for instance, the removal of such account can trigger a
notification to the QA team which can then directly proceed to orphan
all packages of the just deactivated account. That's another topic not
related to the proposal, but IMO shows that the two practices are not
at stake with each other.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
