Re: Work-needing packages report for Sep 6, 2002
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 08:26:14PM +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...
I'm just pointing out that what QA members do for orphaned packages is done
in `good faith', it shouldn't actually be considered their immediate
responsibility. Removing an orphaned package should be done within a few
months/years after the orphaning, we don't have to wait until someone does a
QA upload to fix the long-outstanding flaws in the package. That's all. :)
> > (did you see his changelog entry? gross!).
>
> There's been a dozen...
I'm referring to the dstoolk one (or what's it called). It didn't even have
basic FSSTND/FHS compliance, IIRC.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: