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 ;) Cheers Steffen
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.