Re: Bits from the RM
In article <20031201044508.GA16563@azure.humbug.org.au>,
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
>Without having evaluated null hypotheses or done exhaustive analyses,
>the correlation nevertheless seems fairly convincing. To put it bluntly,
>our regular package maintainers are doing such a bad job that without
>significant assistance from NMUs, about 6% of the archive fails to meet
>even our _absolute minimum_ expectations.
>
>That's bad.
>
>It would be bad even if the 6% was random junk that no one uses or cares
>about, or was a bunch of packages that were so complicated no one knows
>how to fix them, which is probably what you're thinking. Unfortunately,
>it's even worse than that. Consider the following examples:
I really think you should look at the activity on a bug as well. If
there's a grave bug filed against a package, see if there's any
reply from the maintainer in that bug report. Sure, a grave bug might
be open for a month, and if the maintainer ignores it that is
very bad, but if there's an active discussion going on on
the relevant [0-9]+@bugs.debian.org address you can't say the
maintainer is ignoring it.
Just my EUR .02
Mike.
Reply to: