Re: Bits from the MIA team
Steffen Joeris wrote:
> 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 ;)
By popular demand the MIA Team will be using non-RC (important) severity
and track the bugs with usertags (User: email@example.com,