On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:27:00 +0100 James Findley <s...@gmx.com> wrote:
> > Really? So imagine this scenario. > > Packager foo has two packages, bar and baz. > bar is a package much like ed, which needs very little attention, and > goes for a year without anything needing doing to it, no koji > activity happens. This increases the hidden little "AWOLness" > counter. > > foo then goes on holiday for a week, and forgets to mention this on > his fp.o page. > A bug is found in package baz. Bug reports are filed - users are > impatient. It's noticed that foo has a very high AWOLness counter > due to foo's other package. - Maintainer is nominated as AWOL. - FESCo (or whatever humans are supposed to) look at this and decide that he's not really awol, he's just away from his computer. > He is surprised to learn that he's been declared AWOL and had his > packages removed when he returns from holiday. I think much more likely would be that if the bug/issue was security or critical, a provenpackager would step in and fix it. If he wasn't back in a few more weeks the packages would be orphaned and passed on to a new maintainer. > As I read the initial proposal, this is entirely plausible. I don't think so. Any process needs to have a human check at the end. We shouldn't automate it fully as there will be false positives. Humans should look at the case and catch stuff like the above. kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
