Re: What to do with unresponsive maintainers?
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 05:34:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email@example.com> writes:
> > A high bug count an-sich is no shame. It is only an indication that the
> > package apparently is useful, and people take the time to give feedback
> > to make it even more useful.
> On the other hand a bug count on your package will be seen as badly
> maintained during the NM process. So I can see why someone wants to
> close all bugs he can do nothing about or not even reproduce.
For the record: I have seen no single indication that this is true. If
you really think that your statement is true, please show some
references to that effect. Simply posing something without arguments
won't convince me. Also, you mix two issues: this wasn't about bugs that
are really unreproducable and might be the user's fault and also have an
unresponsive submitter, but about all other bugs. And whether you leave
the latter as 'unreproducable' in the bts, or close them, I still don't
think that matters much.
I really cannot imagine that anyone involved in NM will simply add up
the bug counts, divide them by number of packages, and see that as an
indication of well-maintainance. Rather, for example most AM's that I
know find the package-checking thing one of the more tedious AM things
to do, and that's not because just counting bugs is how it's done.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)