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

Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.

* Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > Certainly nothing is *wrong* with it, but it's not required and would
> > add to the time it takes for AMs to do their work *without any benefit*.
> It saves the time the Frontdesk needs to look for problems too.

If it's saved him enough time for it to be worth it I'd expect him to
say something and to ask the AMs to log such information.  To date he
hasn't so I'm inclined to believe that *he* doesn't think it'd save him
much time (he's likely to need to contact the AM and/or applicant if
there's really a problem anyway, and likely to be prodded by one or the
other if there's a problem).

> > > Why should the sponsor try to contact him again and waste a month
> > > waiting for a reply thats not going to come? (e.g. when the applicant
> > > has been pinged already)
> > 
> > Honestly I don't see this happening.  What month is 'wasted' by the AM
> > attempting to contact the NM?  What about people who have packages
> > sponsored who aren't in the NM queue, or havn't been assigned an AM yet?
> > This isn't an argument, it's not even a point for discussion.
> The example I ment was:
> 1. NM is maintainer of foo.
> 2. NM is MIA.
> 3. someone has a problem with foo
> 4. someone sees no activity for foo, got no reply to mail
> db.debian.org doesn't have echelon information for the maintainer so
> the next place would be nm.debian.org.

As mentioned, this isn't isolated to applicants- the same is true for
people who are sponsored who aren't in the NM queue, or don't have an AM
assigned yet even.  Personally I *rarely* use echelon information anyway
so this wouldn't change things at all for me.  At the same time though,
if you think this really is worthwhile then feel free to set up your own
NM-tracking system similar to echelon, just about everything it uses is

> > If they've got some reason to then I don't have a problem with that, in
> > fact, *that's exactly what I suggested*.  I don't think it'd be
> > productive for uninvolved people to ping AMs for such information just
> > to satisfy their own curiousity.
> As long as AM, DAM and Frontdesk don't mind getting one after over 6
> Month of no update thats fine.

I don't see why they would.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: