Re: What to do with unresponsive maintainers?
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 05:34:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
My xlife package having bugs and having been NMUed (on my request) was
used against me. So I have first hand knowledge of it.
> 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.
Bugs that can be reproduced should certainly never be closed without a
good reason. The new maintainer should tag them acklowledged (and
untag bugs he can't acklowledge) and maybe add updated dependency
infos used to reproduce it.
> 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.
Of cause its not so simple as counting bugs.