On 23/07/09 at 01:10 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > 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.)
Sure, I meant that they do not harm the archive since they do not upload packages. > 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. I'm not sure if this is the correct approach to that problem: It doesn't take in account maintainers that are not DDs, and that can also become MIA. But it could be used in addition to other approaches. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
