Il 16/02/26 13:46, Cristian Le via devel ha scritto:
> On 2026/02/16 12:55, Michel Lind wrote:
>
>> The numbers for those without pagure activity is lower (305 vs 606),
>> but that still means potentially 301 packagers let Packit handle all
>> their builds and never kick off a build by hand.
>>
>> IDK if that's great or scary.
>
> That confused me initially as well, but the numbers are subset of each other,
> i.e. 305 of the 606.
Yep, I need to adjust the wording of the script output, I agree that's
confusing. It is meant to be read:
### Found 1459 users in the packager group. ###
-> out ot those 606 users with no builds in Koji over the last year.
--> out ot those 305 users with no activity in pagure/src.fp.org over the last
year.
---> out ot those 282 users which didn't post any message in Fedora Discussion
over the last year.
----> out ot those 254 users which also show no activity in Bodhi over the last
year.
-----> out ot those 234 users which also show no activity in mailing lists over
the last year.
------> out ot those 167 users which also show no activity in Bugzilla over the
last year.
> But letting packit handle the builds is by design in that workflow. As long
> as the activity from PR is correctly attributed, then it should be fine, and
> it would reflect the actual activity of the maintainers of that package
> including packit doing the automation in Koji and Bodhi.
>
> If there were the case that there is really nobody overseeing the PRs, then I
> would argue that it should be caught as complete inactivity and the workflow
> on that package should be revisited.
I agree that, while packit is useful, there should be a human at some time in
the loop to check and approve what automation does. When I proposed this
policy, my idea is that being a packager should not be limited to push the
package you're interested in repository and then forget everything until it
FTB. Packaging guidelines sometimes evolves and the specfile needs adjustment,
users file bugs, etc. Some sort of interation with the community or the package
specfile it's needed. The purposes of the policy, as I intended, are to ensure
the maintainer is reachable and also to prevent these kind of "fire and forget"
behavior.
However, as long as the maintainer replies to the yearly ping ticket, I'm
perfectly fine to close the related ticket. Some of them just replies "I'm
here", some others have maybe forgotten they're still listed as packagers and
agree to be removed. Usually the final count of users that are removed at each
run is ~5-7% of total packagers.
Mattia
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
