[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Work-needing packages report for Sep 6, 2002



On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 12:17:11PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 02:08:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If the QA folks get bored maintaining some packages, it'd make sense
> > to remove them, but if they're actually being maintained, even without
> > a proper Maintainer, it doesn't make so much sense.
> I didn't say the packages Matej's uploaded should be immediately removed,
> just that we shouldn't be encouraged to sit and wait for months until
> someone got bored enough to fix them and upload

Which is nice, but it doesn't say what we _should_ do. The trivial sorts
of metrics, like "non-free, orphaned, buggy and hasn't been touched for
a year", don't work, since QA _is_ actually active enough to make that
not actually happen. If you want more complicated metrics, you'll need to
work out some good ones, and find some way of regularly applying them...

> (did you see his changelog entry? gross!).

There's been a dozen...

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpiu0kGE5vGb.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: