Re: Bits from the MIA team
Nico Golde wrote:
> Hi Luk,
> * Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2007-12-08 18:21]:
>> Nico Golde wrote:
>>> Hi Mario,
>>> * Mario Iseli <email@example.com> [2007-12-06 21:33]:
>>> What is the purpose of this? If the package is well
>>> maintained I think it's really
>>> questionable that an inactive co-maintainer justifies a
>>> source upload just because his name is in the control file
>>> (like for example in #455011).
>> To make sure packages don't end up with only inactive (co-)maintainers.
> That could be avoided if you check that every maintainer of
> the package is MIA.
Note that I wrote 'end up'... of course we don't file bugs for packages
were all maintainers are already MIA: these packages get orphaned right
>> If a package is well maintained it's perfectly ok to lower the
>> importance of the bug and fix the issue in the next upload...
> I still don't see a reason for a bug. An active maintainer
> will notice this and will fix it by himself I guess.
> To me this is not very different from filing a bug for an outdated
> standards version (e.g. 3.7.2) even if no package changes
> are needed.
Having packages listing inactive maintainers harms as people try to
contact them. I'm not sure an active maintainer is really sure the
co-maintainer is MIA and thus probably won't remove them...