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

Re: Bits from the MIA team

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:39:15 pm Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Nico Golde wrote:
> > > 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.
> A MIA-check is not something instantaneous. It takes several months. So
> it's not really possible...
> > I still don't see a reason for a bug. An active maintainer
> > will notice this and will fix it by himself I guess.
> I don't agree with this. In a team, it's difficult to notice that one
> member disappeared. And lack of involvement in one package doesn't mean
> being completely MIA. As co-maintainer I wouldn't want to remove someone
> if I'm not sure that he won't come back.
At least use important. I actually don't care, if there is a bug or not for 
the issue. But I do care about the testing migration. We do have DDs, who are 
doing work only during the weekend (which is perfectly acceptable). So if you 
write an RC bug on monday, this might hold up the testing migration for a 
couple of days. Imagine there is a security fix waiting for migration. Do you 
want to keep this from migrating? Please don't make the work of the 
testing-security team harder ;)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: